Rumor: #52 on last year's football roster sold shoes as part of the investigation

I guess if we go conspiracy theory, if any current player shoes were sold, if that current player still has their issued pair, maybe someone is trying to get the program.

I'm still holding out for the simplest explanation.

Does that mean we'd have to forfeit our Outback Bowl loss?

That would only have bearing on the team and program as a whole if the coaches knowingly went along with it. I find it VERY hard to believe that happened.

Exactly, with all of the new staff, and the rapidly rising coaching salaries there's literally no way to pay these young man a few grand per year. 

True, but you also forgot to mention: Paying players would require either a cut from somewhere or increased revenue.  Every attempt to increase revenue in college sports is always obnoxious.  Cuts would not happen in the admittedly ridiculous "support" system, which has cropped up due to the obnoxious revenue increases.  They would come from non-revenue sports, which given Title IX means that there would be a lot of men's sports on the chopping block.  Paying the football and basketball players most likely means the end of many, many dozens of baseball, track, swimming, wrestling, tennis, and soccer programs, destroying thousands of opportunities for male athletes who had the misfortune to be really damn good at something other than tackling or dribbling.

I mean I wish I was gifted athletically enough that it resulted in me graduating school debt free. Also how would title IX play into paying athletes? Lets just separate revenues based on sport then only the strong and profitable can survive. 

Compromise is letting players profit off their own name especially for the Mayfields, Manziels and Newtons of the game. Or have the NFL/NBA adopt the NHL draft eligibility requirements and rookie salary. Or my personal favorite... you are 18? Go pro or quit your bitching.

Last one is my favorite because all the "pay players" people will throw a fit at pro sports for having guys wash out and turn to bums. Hey at least they got paid that one time!!

Yes, I have a problem with that. See ijohnb's post above.

Now let's talk CTE.

Because you ae only thinking about one collegiate sport—and only one division, and only a few schools. How is it fair that the D1 power 5 football players get “tangible” benefits. Sorry, but free sneakers and gear and bowl game hotels, etc., are tangible. And so is compensation for room and board and tuition. These kids get paid for degrees and do not have to be in debt and can audition for a professional athletic careers. Why is he school not to make money? Why is the school not allowed to redistribute those funds to help other college athletes in, say, cross country? The revenue is reinvested into the entire athletic department—and plenty of schools do not make what UM’s football team does. Why did UAB disband a few years ago? Hmmmm. The “pay the players” argument typically ignores th rest of the AD and the overall landscape of how few can afford 100s of thousands of dollars extra to run a football team. Plenty of teams need bowl appearances to break even. Just, yeah, Pandora’s Box—and not the kind where you pick up jewelry.

I just remember what Carlos Thompson said on last chance u. How he was more than fine with the money he received as stipends. And we’re talking about paying just football and basketball players even though there are athletes like Quinn Hughes who could arguably have a bigger impact in his profession than anyone currently on either the b-ball or football teams. If you pay some, you have to pay all, unequal amounts. Who’s to say the softball team shouldn’t receive as much or more than other athletes? I mean they’ve been arguably the most successful team in the program the last few years. But athletes in all the other sports devote just as much time and effort into their sports yet wouldn’t receive as much as athletes in other sports. As a hockey player, you are on the ice 5-6 times a week throughout the whole offseason, with workouts 5-6 times a week. But they wouldn’t receive as much as the football or basketball players who aren’t on the field or court nearly as much in the offseason. I don’t see the hockey players complaining about not getting paid. 

Didn't they just add stipends to athletes a couple years ago?  The last I heard it cost on average 174,000 per athlete yearly and there were some expenses not included in that.  I can't find the donation request flyer to verify what wasn't included.

"If they were paid market value for their services..."  There is such a market, and they can get paid the rate for their market value of they want to (Canadian football, overseas football, semi-pro football).  The problem for the "pay them their market value" people is that these guys couldn't afford to even live in a college town on their "market value," let alone afford tuition. 

triggered hahahahaha

My brother in law was in a lab at UM as an undergrad, where the lab made a significant amount of revenue through grants, patents and other partnerships. 

While he had the opportunity to make a pile after he left with a PHD, nobody in that world class lab is making "market value". Let's remember that the primary value of a Michigan education is a Michigan education. I feel that the pay athletes idea holds more water at institutions of suspect learning.

This is some of the worst math and accounting logic I've ever seen.

I'm not taking a stance either way, but you are missing a LOT of actual costs and it's a ridiculous premise that the majority of our starters will have a market value of $2.1m.

There is a difference between providing players with a stipend (which I favor increasing) and paying them some fictional "market value" which would vary by player and year.

Those who want to "spend money on the players" should consider first increasing the scholarships in all sports to full scholarships.  Then you can think about professionalizing and spinning off the football and basketball teams.