Holy shit, if the Big 10 unilaterally does this, I will never complain about Leaders and Legends again. The quotes from Delany and Smith are fantastic! Do what's right instead of worrying about what makes everyone happy. The MAC and Big 10 aren't on the same level and everyone knows it.
Big Ten considers pay proposal for student athletes
Seems like a way to justify no repercussions for fO$U cheating. I do not like.
This is no way shape or form about a cover up for OSU its about sharing some of the money the players earned for he university.
if those five players had tat money, then clearly they wouldn't have doen what they did ...
About damn time.
Sounds like the Ohio students are in for a pay cut.
They are just "laundry money".
It's great that the Big Ten is "leading" the way by investigating this possibility.
I think there are two routes that they could go here: They can give players "allowance", like a certain amount of money per week for neccessities, or they could reverse the rule which disallows players from holding jobs. Either way, I think the athletes deserves some help.
can this even happen unilaterally? imagine that recruiting visit when compared to one from another conference.
The NCAA is ultimately controlled by it's member schools. If the Presidents of the big schools want to do something, they can do it and dare the NCAA to stop them. Their revenue is how the NCAA funds itself.
Not saying the Big Ten isn't a big deal or anything, but they wouldn't do this without the Pac or the SEC, IMO. Not that it would be tough convincing the SEC that their players should get more money.
The Big 10 definitely wouldn't do this alone. I think the Big 10 might talk internally about this and then approach the other big conferences about it. They'd form a consensus and then take it to the NCAA. Long term, it probably leads to a smaller top tier in NCAA athletics, which would probably be a good thing.
Just curious, but why do you see a smaller top tier to be a good thing? Recently the feeling seems to have been parity as good, lopsided tiers bad. Are you saying good for us, or good for college athletics?
I don't think schools in the lower half benefit from big-time football and they pay shocking amounts of money out of student fees and state funds to keep the programs afloat. I expound here.
So your assertion is that we should muscle those smaller schools out? College football is good for a college. Even if they're a mid-major, they still get publicity from their games and programs. It may be expensive to keep them afloat, but obviously they see it as a worthwhile investment, or else they wouldn't have it. Something like this would create a huge disparity between top programs and not--more or less creating a D-1A and D-1B.
My assertion is that the school regents should decide to quit a game they can't compete at that costs them enormous percentages of their budget each year.
I doubt anyone really has done the research to figure out what happens when schools deemphasize sports. The Ivy League isn't a great example and no large block has deempasized since TV revenue has exploded.
They should be the first to do this. They were the first the do instant replay, the first to have their own TV network. Look how fast everyone else follows when the good ideas work. Somebody has to go first. I'm all for them going first b/c of the obvious advantage it will give in recruiting for a year or two until everyone else catches up.
The BIG 10 was the first conference to make its own network which was a awesome move, this could be even more ground breaking.
im glad they realize the players are making them that money. ive got no problem for students having all living expenses paid. $2500mo would be just about the right amount.
how many student athletes re in the b10?
im guessing about 3000. 3000 athletes * 2500mo * 9mo year = $67,500,000.00yr
They meant 2-5k/year on top of room and board. Basically fun money.
can you explain how that justifies a cover up?
Once you start handing out money, its going to be very easy to "accidently" over pay a player here or there. Their payment is their free education, thats how it should stay imo
Student-athletes already get montthly room-and-board checks if they live off-campus, so they've been getting paid in that way. I don't think the danger lies in schools themselves paying extra money (they know that would get them nailed), but in third parties continuing to do so.
Frankly, it's already easy to pay players. It's not like the NCAA has investigators running around campus like cops. It's an honor system. The hard part is keeping it secret--especially with Twitter and Facebook.
Have to stop you here - this makes little sense. When you talk about it being easy to pay players, most people would interpret that to mean it is easy to pay them and keep it secret. Under what circumstances would it be "easy" to play players if you can't keep it secret? Obviously it is "easy" to hand anyone money, but of what value is that if everyone knows you did it?
What I really meant was that no one from the NCAA is actively watching players or monitoring their spending habits. I could give a star player a $500 handshake every week and no one would know if he wasn't dumb enough to tell everyone. SMU fell apart not because they paid players, but because they paid everyone and it became too big to control.
I'd guess kids get freebies (money, free food and drink, etc) regularly at an awful lot of schools. The only way anyone will find out is if the players talk or the media exposes it a la Yahoo.
Okay, I think we all can assume that the NCAA isn't following individual players around campus, hopefully anyway.
So yeah, if no one talks all is good.
What new insight are you adding to this age old (I'm talking pre-Ptolemy Egypt) adage?
Not a fan because it's a slippery slope we're on
I'm not sure what the slippery slope is. People aren't advocating paying athletes what they're actually worth to the universities or paying them an amount based on how good they are. This is just a couple hundred dollars a month for clothes and to have fun on the weekends.
But how long until one conference decides to offer more money than another? Than teams are at a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting. And other students don't get money to spend on their own. But those students aren't making the university money? They're the ones purchasing the tickets and memorabilia. Student athletes shouldn't be getting anything that regular students aren't.
There would have to be some kind of an agreement among all the BCS conferences, if not the NCAA itself. There's no way each conference could set its own rules on this.
Easier said than done. There are differences in cost of living throughout the country- so do we pick a flat rate, or something normalized to cost of living (never mind that even economists can not agree on calculating cost of living). It is also unlikely among even the "major" conferences that there will be agreement on how much to pay athletes- not to mention within those conferences themselves.
The schools are just going with their cost of attendance numbers. This is different for each school, but each school has to have theirs approved by the board of regents or an equivalent body, and it exists for each and every undergraduate at the same level. Schools can't just jack theirs up to $20k-$30k per year on top of tuition without serious consequences (likely from the Department of Education at the state and federal level).
There's actually a lot of pressure to keep that number down. It's a number people use to determine affordability, so most schools are going to drive that down as much as possible.
Exactly. A lot of people would take a look at Michigan (for example) and if the CoA was $70k or something, they would go to UNC or NU or Cal or Texas or whatever. Losing those students isn't worth benefitting the football team a marginal amount for a university administration.
Cost of living is already factored into the room and board payments athletes get each month. A UCLA player gets more than a Kansas State player because of that. The number is based on cost of attendance, which is a number that universities are required to publish by the feds. It includes tuition, fees, and a very, very modest cost of living. The feds allow students to borrow up to the cost of attendance. NCAA scholarships cover most of cost of attendance, but they don't quite cover all of it.
I think Michigan's official cost of attendance is around 20K after tuition and fees, which is pretty small--at least to a guy like me who is going back to school with a family.
I guess I am not clear on what this money is meant for. Saying it is to cover "cost of attendance" suggests that the kids are not able to buy all the basics (food, books, tuition, room, incidentals) to go to college. But then to refer to it as "fun money" suggests that it is meant to allow them, if not luxuries, at least the fancy headphones, smartphones, playstations, alcohol etc. Things that are certainly part of the college experience, but not exactly the types of things that should come from the school.
That being said, if this proposal is implemented by the NCAA as a whole (with a choice for schools to either opt-in or opt-out and form a separate division 1B or something), and the payments are fixed across the entire "top-tier", it makes me a lot more comfortable than I was when I initially read what the Big-10 was suggesting.
The points about cost of living being figured into scholarships is well taken, but I think most kids dont look at the cash value of their scholarship, so the fact that these scholarships vary by school is not appreciated. But, if you say "Come to Michigan and get $500 more a semester than you would at Clemson", the average 18 year old is not going to consider that the purchasing power is equal at both schools- they are going to go with the extra cash. The problem is that the system has to both be fair and appear fair.
(This is the money above and beyond tuition, room and board, and books.)
NU: 1,845 (not including variable transportation that I'm assuming is assigned by state)
The others weren't easily available, but this gives a good idea. All of them are pretty much in line, with outliers NU and OSU (and OSU might be less, they could be including books, it was tough to tell on their site).
Again, this is what each student is given the option to borrow in order to live on for the year.
In theory, this is a great idea. It could definitely work. No matter what your intentions, however, it will reduce parity. You have the chance to make some money, why would you go somewhere you can't? (see SEC football). That being said I absolutely support it, and as long as it is thoroughly thought out and implemented properly it could be a great thing for student athletes and college athletics as a whole, but it could also grey the already fading line between 'amateurism' and 'professionalism'.
There isn't parity anyway. The SEC, B1G and Pac, along with Texas and Oklahoma, own everything, with the exception that the Boise/TCU teams of the world get into the formers club on a year-to-year basis every now and then.
Teams break the rules now so how could this get dangerous? With or without this people will try and bend the rules but these players deserve a little extra cash for food,gas,bills,hair cuts,clothes,and other misc stuff. I understand some peoples concerns about teams over paying but some already do and its not fair to the teams that dont this could be a great equalizer you just have to think outside the box on this.
This is a tremendous idea. I'm not going to complain too much, but the cost of tuition, books, and housing isn't enough for players when they're going to school and have a full-time job.
Aside from this being good for the student athletes think of the impact it could have on recruiting. If you're a kid sitting on scholarship offers from Alabama, USC, and Michigan where are you going? My only concern is conferences competing on pay down the road. It would be beneficial to all if the NCAA would step up and put together a plan or a way to cap the pay at $5000. A financial pissing match between conferences wouldn't do anyone, any good.
Great idea. After all, a free ride to one of the most prestigious university's in the country is clearly not enough. .
Especially talking about football/basketball players, it's nowhere near enough from a purely economic point of view. How much revenue does M football bring in? What's payroll (scholarship cost)?
You can argue that the value system of college athletics is correct, but to say they absolutely don't deserve more is beyond ridiculous. Also, FYI, the cost of attendance is what I'm allowed to take out in loans and/or scholarships. This is just bringing athletes in line with the rest of the student body, but on a scholarship basis (and there are cost of attendance academic scholarships at schools across the country).
Paying players is a bad idea.
Schools paying players in an unregulated (i.e. competitive) way is an extraordinarily bad idea.
1. Bidding wars between schools and conferences- you may think paying $2000 per player is fair, but when Alabama starts paying $3K, USC $5K, and in 5 years we are paying $10K per player, will it still be a good idea.
2. Bidding wars among players- if we are paying players for the value they bring to the university, it is pretty clear that not all players bring the same value, so why should they be paid the same? Certainly the star players will hold out for a higher payout.
3. An open door for boosters- The NCAA (imperfectly) keeps boosters from paying players under the table. But no one can (or would) stop alumni from donating to the school. And if that $5 million allows the university to increase their payments to players... well, good luck proving that one.
4. I have no idea about the wealth of Michigan alumni, but as a state school, I would not want to bet on our ability to compete with private universities in keeping up with paying players. I am not saying that Harvard is going to become a football powerhouse, but I would bet that this would give a school like Notre Dame a huge competitive advantage.
5. Now that athletes will be paid, I think we will see more of the Bobby Petrino approach of withdrawing scholarships from players who do not perform. After all, that is what happens in the pros- if you dont perform, you get cut. Since we are dispensing with the fiction that these are students, and especially with the increased investment that the schools will be putting into each player, more schoold will cease to guarantee 4 year scholarships.
6. An end to any ability to police illegal payments to athletes. It is hard enough (as we have seen) to make a case when the athletes are not allowed to receive any money. If there is some amount of money that they are allowed to have, good luck proving that any given item was purchased with "illegal" money.
This is just off the top of my head, but it is an awful idea even without getting into the whole morass of what is fair to the players.
You know the schools already give money directly to players for room and board, right? There's nothing to stop them from living with a booster and pocketing the money each month now or just having the booster buy a large home near campus for the best players. NCAA enforcement is an honor system, that's why people only get in trouble when the media uncovers something or a player blabs.
The Big 10 pretty obviously was interested in informally talking to other conferences to see what they wanted to do before telling the NCAA what the schools wanted to do collectively. The idea would be that the BCS schools would agree to a hard number for every player and the lower tier schools would deempasize sports some, which is probably a good thing for the lower tier schools. They already can't compete and this might be the impetus to separate the top FBS schools from everyone else.
True, players get money for room and board, but this is a regulated amount. Players are limited in how much they receive and it does not provide a competitive advantage to one school or player over another. I think your examples about boosters paying for houses or putting players up in their own houses ARE specifically prohibited by the NCAA to prevent such abuses. I think a better argument would be if a local player chooses to live at home and pocket the room and board allowance. I am not sure how the NCAA handles this, and I suppose there is potential for abuse, although I think this would affect few enough players to be overlooked.
I think the mistake the Big 10 is making is viewing the BCS as made up of just upper and lower tiers. I think this type of unregulated system is going to create large disparities even among the "haves".
I confess I am opposed to any payments to players (beyond the status quo) but I understand that there are arguments on both sides. But opening up a free market is a step beyond that.
Nothing is even close to being decided, so I will watch and wait, but what has been said makes me nervous. If the "top tier" programs want to offer more support to student athletes and separate from mid-majors et al, they still need to do it in a unified way, rather than by individual teams or even individual conferences.
The NCAA would regulate the amount in the same way it regulates room and board. It would be a unified stance between the Big 5 or 6 conferences. The Big 10 can't really split off on its own and hope to maintain its exposure, and thus its revenue.
Frankly, the mid-majors need to think about why they're in FBS football. It costs them millions of dollars in student fees and state money whereas the AQ teams are basically cost/revenue neutral due to their TV deals.
The mid-majors are in FBS football for the good of the sport as a whole. I fully understand the economic ramifications but removing the mid-majors from major college football would be to the long term detriment of the sport as a whole. This isn't the NFL, at least not yet, hopefully.
Okay, but the good of FBS football probably shouldn't be the EMU regent's concern when they decide whether or not to allocate almost 10% of their budget to subsidize athletic revenue.
The EMU Regents have to make that decision based on the facts before them, not on your perception of what those facts are. Ultimately that lands on them, and I doubt it is as simple as you have put forth.
I'm sure there are, but I can't for the life of me figure out why a school like EMU plays FBS football other than the fact that they played it the year before. That's why I wrote a diary about it a couple weeks ago. I thought something would jump out at me, but nothing did.
I don't know if it helps to sell kids on EMU or not, but to offset the negative economics of FBS football, they need some serious benefit.
Also, please be careful. I neither said nor implied that the EMU regents should be concerned with the good of the FBS.
"The mid-majors are in FBS football for the good of the sport as a whole."
I interpreted that sentence to mean you thought the mid-majors were in FBS for the greater good, which had to mean that's what the administration wanted. No offense intended.
You're losing me. When I say they are in for the good of the sport as a whole - meaning broad participation is generally good - that has nothing to do with the good of the FBS.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with collegiate athletics is that the media and so many different organizations profit off of the work put in by these students. The money made by the universities primarily goes back out in scholarship money and things. I think if anything, we need to be curbing the profit of third parties, not extending endowment to students. Then again, as you said, it's a fiction that these are students. Sad, really.
I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist.
The $20+ million each Big 10 teams get each season doesn't go to scholarships. The TV revenue explosion has coincided with massive increases in coaches salaries for all sports and a facilities arms race. That's where the money is going.
I still contend that all the NCAA needs to do is allow players to get money from whatever outside sources they can get it from, as long as it isn't from gamblers. Paying players is going to be a Title IX nightmare. All they have to do is stop being assholes to the players about money. It's less work for the NCAA and the players get what they deserve above the table.
Also, it levels the table for schools like Michigan that don't pay players and takes away the built-in advantage of schools like TSIO, USC, and anyone in the SEC. And it gets rid of a lot of "compliance" people.
How does this level the table? Schools like U$C, OSU and the SEC schools would have even more of a competitive advantage because they have crazed fanbases with boosters who would offer recruits and players lots of money to come there.
I don't think the "holier-than-thou" attitude applies.
Michigan almost always plays by the rules. If the rules change, so will Michigan. I don't think our fanbase would be any less eager than OSU's, USC's, or the SEC's to win/to overcompensate athletes and treat them like kings/queens.
That said, I strongly disagree with Tater's position.
will have the best football programs in the country by this logic.
Once their alumni open their chequebooks - its a free for all.
"I remember the stand at Thermopylae
the Greek Guard made one day;
I remember the legions that Caesar used
To shatter the Gallic sway;
And I remember across those years
Two banners that crowned the crest,
When Yale was king of the conquered East,
And Michigan ruled the West.
At night in my humble den I dream
Of the glories that used to be-
Of Hannibal taking the Alpine Trail,
Of Drake on the open sea;
And then I wander the ancient ways
To a dream I love the best,
When Yale was king of the conquered East,
And Michigan ruled the West."
This makes no sense to me at all. They are already getting their education and room/board paid for. They get meal plans and training table meals. I bet none of them even take out any student loans. If they need some extra cash why can't they just take out a small loan each semester like the rest of us do? These college athletes need to realize how lucky they are to graduate with next to no debt.
This is an exceptionally good point, and a perspective I hadn't considered before. They could also get a job for spare cash. I know people who can handle a full course load, a job, and daily rehearsals, so I know most athletes can handle it.
As I said above, I am not in favor of paying players, but I do think we have to recognize that for all their advantages, there are some drawbacks.
These players are going to class (just humor me here) as well as spending both official and unofficial time at practice and in the training room, and so it would surprise me if they had the time available to get a job in addition to this. And I would bet that getting a loan would be difficult- the vast majority of players will never go pro, so I doubt many reputable places would give loans based on future earnings, or if they did, it would be at such exhorbitant rates of interest that it would be a bad idea for a 19 or 20 year old to get into such transactions. Also, I would bet there are addiitonal hurdles with the NCAA clearing such loans to make sure that they were not sweetheart deals given by boosters.
I don't like the solution of paying the players, but I do think that there is a problem.
"it would be at such exhorbitant rates of interest that it would be a bad idea for a 19 or 20 year old to get into such transactions."
Yeah... it's not like normal students have to get loans with high interest rates...
/goes back to his 65k loan bills...
Federal education loans give excellent interest rates. A student getting a personal loan? I am sure they would be at an outrageous interest rate. Actually, I am surprised that students can get personal loans these days-- what collateral do they have?
I will grant you that the athletes are no worse off than students for personal loans. But my other comments stand.
Perhaps I am off base but a couple thoughts come to mind.
1. Summer job when they are not busy with football per say. Heck during the season it sounds like they shouldn't even have time to spend money so perhaps summer earning would hold them over for the most part.
2. I would be in favor of some sort of special loan program with say a $3600/year cap. These loans would be just like a student loan in that interest and payments would be deferred until after graduation. Either they would go pro and have no issues paying it off or they would get a degree and a job and then work on paying their off 15K to 20K in student loan debt upon graduation. This is assuming they borrowed the max for 5 years. I would love to only owe 15K to 20K for my degree.
3. In Stonum's case, the above would not be available. He lost that right with the second strike. Perhaps a little more incentive to keep clean.
Federally subsidized loans are really easy to get and you can borrow for the cost of attendance, which is what the Big 10 is looking into subsidizing.
Jobs aren't really possible. The NCAA really restricts them, and, if I remember correctly, the average FBS football player puts something like 70 hours/week into school and their athletic obligations. That's more than the vast majority of us work each week.
This is way overdue. Makes you feel for the poor kids at OSU that had to sell their pants to make ends meet :(
They weren't the students' pants. They were just "borrowing" them from Michigan.
This is a really feel-good story for athletes until half the wrestling and men's track teams in the nation are cut because the smaller schools can't afford the expense and nobody ever starts a lacrosse team again.
It will make some more comfortable and deny others their opportunity. That's indisputable.
Don't you think the big conferences could just separate themselves and have their own division on top of D-1? That's what I got from the article.
Haven't they already? I mean, with BCS AQ conferences and all, it is kind of their own little Boys' Club. Why go through and make them a whole seperate entity? And how would that save them any money?
It would save the MAC, WAC and Sun Belt, ect. conferences the expense of competing with M/OSU/Texas et. all. I think that's what ZL is getting at.
But aren't those cupcake games, where they do compete against the likes of us, one of their primary sources of income for their athletic departments? Losing those games would all but kill those programs, especially the ones who are just now able to stay afloat.
We pay UMass and uh...the other team nobody wants to mention, and they're down a division. It would be business as usual for EMU or Toledo.
But isn't a lot of peoples' argument that D-1AA wins should not count towards Bowl eligibility? When the schedule comes out, people scoff at THAT school, and we all know how that goes sometimes. Something would have to give, as scheduling would become hell if you have approximately 60 schools (half of D-1A) trying to schedule against eachother to make their SOS as high as possible. Just pointing out some issues with it, and IMO it would cause more issues than it would resolve.
I'm thinking this would be more of a de-facto split between the big six conferences and the rest. Not one mandated by the NCAA with factors like bowl eligibility included. This is just more a statement that the B1G is going up another half step, leaving the MAC behind, for example.
Reasonable points. But this also would hurt the smaller schools in auto-AQ conferences, too, IME. Some of the schools do not have the money/following to warrant this, and it would definitely hurt them. I COULD see this as a possibility when NCAA inevitably moves towards a few SUPERCONFERENCES where some smaller schools would be forced out anyway (to be real, who wants Vandy?). But given the current model, I think it would force too great a disparity and for all intents and purposes create a D-1A with probably 30 teas with a legitimate chance and the rest would create their own lower tier.
Now that I think about it, aside from location, Vandy might be a perfect fit for the Big Ten.
I think all it would do is enhance life for the moneymakers (at least in football and basketball), who are all in big conferences. Unless you're going to argue that the MAC will have less of a chance at the MNC, I don't see the difference between the way things are now, and the schools that can afford it going to full CoA.
As to the superconferences, we basically have three already (B1G, Pac, SEC) with six teams as outliers (I'd argue for Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Miami, Pitt and WVU), also include ND as the one independent, and nobody else with a shot at sustained success. This would help the student-athletes at those schools, and would only hurt the other schools in terms of competitive balance, which I think is already a moot point given the inherent differences between M and EMU or OSU and BGSU.
I think we agree on the basic point, but where you see it as a positive, I see it as a negative. I think the diparity is there, and I don't see a need to exacerbate it. In any sport, parity and competitiveness are considered a positive, and I have to agree with that notion. That being said, I am not against this idea (OP), but rather believe that it is a dangerous path to take, and should be done responsibly with the best for all parties considered.
On this point, I think I'm with Brian. He's written several times that as revenue continues to skyrocket, it's going to get harder to pretend that AQ Athletic Departments are non-profit entities. This could be a preemptive strike or just a general feelling that a school like Michigan with over a $100 million dollar budget should give a slightly larger slice to its revenue generators.
They'd also save some amount by not splitting NCAA B-Ball tourney revenues and BCS money with anyone else. That's a number that is probably much larger than the $X,000 payment they'd give the athletes.
It isn't the budget that matters, it is what is left at the end of the day. Revenue minus expenses equals income. Do you ascribe any value to the education that is being provided? That impacts the bottom line a bit too...quite a bit.
Wouldn't be just the mid-major conferences that have trouble. Look at Cal, which just went through a huge fundraising panic to save their otherwise-doomed baseball and track teams, and I think men's gymnastics too. And that's Cal, which ought to be swimming in McDuck-sized piles of gold. The TCUs and USFs and Vanderbilts of the world, Mississippi State, Minnesota, Iowa State, what have you, are going to find themselves trying and possibly miserably failing to compete in this brave new world and non-revenue men's sports are gonna be the first to go.
Cal, for example, is going to be fine now that they're getting $10+ million more per year in TV revenue before the PAC-12 network starts. The schools who will struggle will be old Big 12 North schools and the Big East. I don't know what the answer is, maybe pay the coaches a little less. That, and new facilities, are what have driven athletic expenses in the last 20 years.
How would you maintain fairness in the system.
Cost of living in NY/ LA/Chicago is way more than cost of living in Columbus/ Madison/ Urbana. Does that mean that players in the city colleges will receive more money than their college town counterparts?
This won't end well.
Worst Idea I have heard of in a while. If you don't want to play, then don't play.
For many kids, at Michigan at least, the cost of OOS tuition alone is about 40K. Throw living expenses on top of that and you will end up paying between 50 and 60 K per year, but that is not enough. How about all the coaching you get? No value to that, right? Even if it gives you the skills to play in the NBA or NFL? How about the academic center that many football players utilitze heavily - last I heard, private tutors weren't free. If not for athletic ability many of these kids (and yeah, there are some bright student athletes out there) are not getting in on academics.
My point is that there is already a quid pro quo built into the system. Sure you work hard, but you get something in exchange for that hard work. Now let's coddle the athletes some more. How does this eliminate the handshakes with $100 bills? It doesn't.
Lots of people put in long days. Try getting a degree in EE or computer engineering and tell me when your day starts and when it ends.
This is getting old. If you don't want to play, then don't. Go to some third rate school and then flip burgers. In exchange for the hard work, you get an education, become part of a great network, and share the limelight on one of the big stages of America. If that isn't enough, then go get a real job.
Awful Idea now those who cheat will have more cover
is that money is money. If I make $2500 a month, I would still like an extra $1000 in my pocket. Paying the player will not stop them accepting money from boosters. This really doesn't solve the problem of bribery in college football, but I do think it's a good idea if it is regulated by the NCAA. I would like to see something where the universities are allowed to give up to "x" amount of money and no more. This would avoid the bidding war previously mentioned.
I like the idea, but it seems to be a reaction to the OSU scandal. The reason for bringing it up is bad, but I guess good things can come from bad motives.
The concept of paying players is ridiculously stupid.