Wisconsin Chancellor Rebecca Blank testifies that, if athletes were to get paid, the school might stop playing sports

I know a lot of people here are calling BS, but I can assure you that there are plenty of university presidents who would be happy to manage a smaller budget if that meant no more football.

My first question to her would be this:

Are your tickets free? If not, why not?

My position is probably unpopular, but it's the way I feel.

I believe we're heading toward a tipping point, where college programs (football and basketball) split into "semi-professional" or "semi-amateur".

With all the scandals, and the obviously corrupting impact of all the money flowing into these sports, it seems inevitable that a bunch of schools will eventually say "enough".  What would it mean?

"Semi-pro" Division: 

- larger "stipends"

- continuing arms race with facilities and salaries

- squeeze every last dollar possible out of TV contracts, ticket prices, concessions, etc.

- growing corporate sponsorship, or even direct affiliation with NFL/NBA

- probably allowing athletes to own their likeness - sort of olympic model

- possibly remove academic requirements completely

- continue to pretend bag men aren't doling out money

Outcome? Continue process toward true minor league for pro teams. Great training ground for future pros, but sad outcomes for those kids who aren't good enough. Probably somewhat less fan interest, especially in-stadium.

Likely participants? OSU, MSU, maybe PSU, Rutgers maybe a few others in BIG. SEC except Vandy. Half of ACC (Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, NC, NC State. Most of Big 12, Part of PAC 12 - USC, the Arizonas, maybe the Oregons, maybe the Washingtons, maybe Utah and/or UCLA. Boise, Houston, SMU, BYU, maybe a few others. Total of about 40.

"Semi-amateur"

- restrictions on TV revenue, or naturally reduced income based on lower ratings/desirability

- restrictions on coaching salaries

- strict enforcement of rules, much more enforcement. No bag men. Possibly adopt olympic model regarding ownership of likeness etc.

- strict enforcement of real academic requirements. Scholarships guaranteed until bachelor's degree completed. 

- more university control of scheduling, etc. Game times set by schools, not networks.

- more control over games. Fewer TV timeouts, emphasis on in-stadium experience. Lower ticket and concession prices. 

Outcome? Much lower revenue. Fewer great players/teams. Attractive in-game experience, but fewer games nationally broadcast. Probably somewhat less general fan interest.

Likely participants? UM (I hope), Wiscy, NW, Minny, Purdue, maybe a few others in BIG, Vandy, Duke, BC, Virginia, GT, Pitt, Syracuse, Wake, maybe a few others in ACC, maybe Texas and/or TCU, Stanford, Cal, some others in PAC (maybe the Washingtons/Oregons, maybe Utah, Colorado, maybe UCLA. ND, Rice, Tulane, service academies, possibly even Ivies if they want to step up in a more amateur setting. Maybe around 40 schools.

As for the "also-rans" (Sun Belt, MAC, etc.), I imagine their numbers will slowly shrink as schools realize how financially stupid it is to try to compete. Many will probably move to DII.

At some point, being associated with the likes of MSU/OSU and the SEC is counter to the mission of the university. Sure, money is a powerful lure, but U Chicago and the Ivies walked away years ago - it's not unprecedented.

I love college football and basketball, but they become less fun for me in a direct relationship to the increase in money. Adding more money into the system and paying players make college sports less attractive to me. I've never had any interest in minor league sports.

Just my opinion.

Here's how I see paying players destroying college athletics as we know it (19-22 y/o playing for a limited time).

Once the schools start paying the players, they become employees. The schools are now no longer exempt through the niche carved out by the NCAA from the Sherman Act which prohibits unreasonable restraints on trade to promote competition.  How are schools going to tell a would-be sixth year player that he isn't allowed to continue his trade of playing football? Creating rules that locks out able-bodied competitors seems like a pretty clear violation of the Sherman Act.

Other sports are able to do this because of collective bargaining agreements that let the players collectively choose to follow certain rules (3 years from high school for NFL, 53 man roster).  The player unions don't mind these types of rules as the players are protecting themselves from competition and keeps their pay up, but what employee is going to vote for a rule that locks themselves out of making money when they are just reach their earning prime (ages of ~24 to 30)?

Since the schools will be required to let anybody work for them, college football just becomes a minor league team with a bunch of 28 year old's that are playing for a paycheck.  I think that would kill any connection the fans have with the players which would greatly affect the way they would support the team.

I also don't like the argument that we should just let the players make money off their likenesses.  This is just a veiled way of saying "let boosters give them whatever they feel like." Nobody really thinks that a high school prospect would be a good spokesman for The Related Companies, but big-time boosters will be able to essentially buy their own teams.

How happy would everyone be once some Russian oligarch or Kuwaiti prince's nephew decides he likes Michigan State football and throws money at a bunch of 5 stars for shits and giggles? I know this is a slippery slope argument, but there's nothing stopping it from reaching that level once the genie is out of the bottle.

Who cares if Wisconsin stops playing sports, B1G has Rutgers now baby

Isn’t she that one-hit wonder? It’s Froiday, Froiday. I believe there was also a conflict over  who got to ride in the front seat of the car. 

pay the athletes and you kill half the other sports, that are subsidized by football and basketball.

they are being paid, handsomely, with a free education along with free food.... pay them, but then make them pay for school and food....and taxes, too...     and then you have implications of instate vs out of state players and the tuition....

works fine the way it is.... 

Hi, this isn't the naive statement it seems to be. It is really pretty cynical - basically it is defending the status quo under the guise that they are serving the educational mission.

Consider:

1. We have many students devote themselves to fields of study that are part of degree granting programs that have very little hope of every making a great professional living. I'm thinking specifically of music, drama and the arts. 

2. We have some students who do hit it big - every few years someone at the UM who did study music, drama or the arts does end up making a decent career of it. Just like most of the people who go to the top music conservatories like Julliard don't end as concert violinist, or pianists, a rare few do.

3. So what's the problem? The problem is that in those fields, the training and education (that's the student part) is actually aim at trying to help these kids succeed in their profession and are taught by people who are actually in tune with what the professional world is seeking.  How is that different than sports?

4. Well, there is no athletic performance major. There are music performance majors. There are art majors. There are dramatic arts majors. These not from some fly-by-night dubious diploma mills but from the so-called ivy league. In athletics there are inches of documents limiting practice, the nature of practice and so far. No such limits occur in any of the arts, drama or music. IF you can find a place to practice, you can practice your bassoon, oboe, or tenor voice to heart's content. IF you can get the canvas, paints, clay, or marble you can create as much art as you may want. Only in athletics is actually development of skill and ability consciously and deliberately hindered and obstructed. No one has to be paid, but they should have their training unfettered and taken seriously.

5. Rather than paying athletes, make their educational student component real. Make them real students of the game. Make actually work on their skills. Most of the team honestly aren't good enough to be performance athlete majors - just like most of the band and orchestra are NOT music majors. But for those who can - then let them do it and help them. This would eliminate a lot of the BS crap of fake courses and easy grading - The people who grade out as a performance athlete at the end should be good enough to be a pro athlete. How can anybody really say a program is good if the star QB busts out because they can't read a defense or understand how that is done?

6. I know that some will claim, pshaw, how can "studying" football, basketball, or any sport (e.g. discus, javelin, badminton) be considered a "serious" study? Really? When people devote themselves to writing long thesis about the symbolism of the use of the color red in Hemingway - why is it so hard to imagine that the study of any human endeavor that preoccupies a good chunk of the population of modern human civilization isn't a serious field of study? It is just snobbery. A quick perusal of the many technical entries on this site explaining the nature of offense, defense and the fine points of play for the different positions shows that there is no limit if one really chooses to take it seriously.

Call me old school, but If you have the opportunity to play for a D1 School for 3-4 years, have free room and board, get a 40k plus a year education paid for and walk out of college to either the pros or otherwise debt free...I call that payment enough. Sure increase the stipend, let these guys go out and grab dinner once a week and to buy a few things they otherwise couldn't afford (shoes,clothes, music, going to the movies etc.) but limit the amount they can spend per week then that's fine. But to give these guys a salary? Not so sure that's a Pandora's box anyone wants to open.