-SEC and Big Ten approves to pay players (legally)....


http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/DG/20...y=nav|head

Both of these conferences obviously bring in butt load of cash now with exclusive deals with ESPN/CBS or Big Ten Network.....they are clearly trying to pull further away on the field from the rest of us...Pac 12 may stay in touch and the upper echelon teams in Big 12 payout, but the ACC and ourselves will take a hit if we have to add schollies and pay players.

Having said all of that, I don't know that UL will be left behind because of the bball money brought in, but teams in the Big East, Big 12, ACC, and non AQs could struggle.

Though I think that athletes should receive some stipend for playing sports, and they cannot maintain jobs once practice starts, I am not convinced that paying the players will stem the tide of boosters providing "incentives" to the players.

As to the OP, when you state teh SEC approves 28 scholarships, are you referring to the yearly signing limit? If so, and the NCAA limits a team to 25, does it matter, the NCAA prevails. If there is no NCAA regulation, then they can do what they want.

As to the SEC and B1G 10 pulling away, I assume all the AQs would begin payments to players within a few years of authorization to do so. The non-AQs would really be hurt, though.

(06-02-2011 04:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Though I think that athletes should receive some stipend for playing sports, and they cannot maintain jobs once practice starts, I am not convinced that paying the players will stem the tide of boosters providing "incentives" to the players.

I agree it won't likely stem that tide. Nevertheless, they should get the 'full cost' of attending the school.

(06-02-2011 04:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Though I think that athletes should receive some stipend for playing sports, and they cannot maintain jobs once practice starts, I am not convinced that paying the players will stem the tide of boosters providing "incentives" to the players.

As to the OP, when you state teh SEC approves 28 scholarships, are you referring to the yearly signing limit? If so, and the NCAA limits a team to 25, does it matter, the NCAA prevails. If there is no NCAA regulation, then they can do what they want.

As to the SEC and B1G 10 pulling away, I assume all the AQs would begin payments to players within a few years of authorization to do so. The non-AQs would really be hurt, though.

I updated to take the scholly part out, I misread an article....the SEC has 28 down to 25 rule by Aug 1......I initially read as bumping up to 28 full rides each year.....OOPS!

Still though....these guys do get a free ride which includes room/board.....they could get a part time job in their offseasons and learn to budget then to have it in savings to use throughout each year. Part of me understands it, but it just doesn't work because if you start paying the non rev sports then you start bankrupting schools.

(06-02-2011 04:48 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 04:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Though I think that athletes should receive some stipend for playing sports, and they cannot maintain jobs once practice starts, I am not convinced that paying the players will stem the tide of boosters providing "incentives" to the players.

As to the OP, when you state teh SEC approves 28 scholarships, are you referring to the yearly signing limit? If so, and the NCAA limits a team to 25, does it matter, the NCAA prevails. If there is no NCAA regulation, then they can do what they want.

As to the SEC and B1G 10 pulling away, I assume all the AQs would begin payments to players within a few years of authorization to do so. The non-AQs would really be hurt, though.

I updated to take the scholly part out, I misread an article....the SEC has 28 down to 25 rule by Aug 1......I initially read as bumping up to 28 full rides each year.....OOPS!

Still though....these guys do get a free ride which includes room/board.....they could get a part time job in their offseasons and learn to budget then to have it in savings to use throughout each year. Part of me understands it, but it just doesn't work because if you start paying the non rev sports then you start bankrupting schools.

Thanks for clarifying.

I have no issue with paying a stipend once practice begins through the end of their season, though it should be set at a level or range (perhaps scale it according to class or playing time). I do not want to see bidding wars like free agents.

(06-02-2011 04:35 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  -SEC and Big Ten approves to pay players (legally)....


http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/DG/20...y=nav|head

Both of these conferences obviously bring in butt load of cash now with exclusive deals with ESPN/CBS or Big Ten Network.....they are clearly trying to pull further away on the field from the rest of us...Pac 12 may stay in touch and the upper echelon teams in Big 12 payout, but the ACC and ourselves will take a hit if we have to add schollies and pay players.

Having said all of that, I don't know that UL will be left behind because of the bball money brought in, but teams in the Big East, Big 12, ACC, and non AQs could struggle.

I dont believe that SU would struggle either for the same reason, and because our fb team is finally making money ($4 million profit in 2010), nor do I believe than any of the other AQ teams would struggle either. But non of the BE schools need to be dishing out more money in this arms race. But I think its a good idea for these kids. Maybe SEC schools will start playing more fair, now.

(06-02-2011 04:35 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  -SEC and Big Ten approves to pay players (legally)....


http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/DG/20...y=nav|head

Both of these conferences obviously bring in butt load of cash now with exclusive deals with ESPN/CBS or Big Ten Network.....they are clearly trying to pull further away on the field from the rest of us...Pac 12 may stay in touch and the upper echelon teams in Big 12 payout, but the ACC and ourselves will take a hit if we have to add schollies and pay players.

Having said all of that, I don't know that UL will be left behind because of the bball money brought in, but teams in the Big East, Big 12, ACC, and non AQs could struggle.

I think our new TV money should put us all on more equal footing to pay players. Basically the BE will be bringing in more money for basically the same product we're selling now. i think we'll have the cash to pay players if we are getting $11 to $15 million per team or better. But this makes attendance at the games even more crucial because obviously selling 70,000 tickets per game makes you richer than selling 30,000 tickets per game.

I think there will be separation but I also think the current BCS conferences will all make the cut as long as there is a ceiling on the amount a team can play players say $5000 per year ($2,500 per semester). That sounds better than $300 per game. Per semester makes it sound more like a stipend.

(06-02-2011 06:01 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Maybe SEC schools will start playing more fair, now.

A number of so-called student athletes in the SEC will be taking a pay-cut if this happens. Lucky for Cam Newton that he got out when he did.
CJ

Whats going on is that these 2 conferences are always ahead of the game trying to keep them arms reach from the rest of us...More power to them....they set up their revenue streams now they're trying to separate the athletes on the field using that revenue stream....Might as well play on Sundays and play for the Super Bowl.....

(06-02-2011 04:35 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Is SEC and Big 10 trying to pull away further from rest of us?

The answer is and always been a BIG FAT YES...and it has nothing to do with a proposal to pay players.

SEC became the first conf to have a $3 Billion TV Deal...with ESPN working (and labeling) itself for many games as SECTV Network.

Big Ten...with their OWN profitable network...and their TV deals...are also helping to separate themselves ($$$ wise) from those in the Big East, ACC, etc...

There's no way the NCAA says yes to any proposal for paying players. Once they do that, I figure college football's tax-free status is the next thing to go - and if the NCAA thought they had problems now, they ain't seen nothing yet...

I don't think the NCAA will approve such a scheme, but if it was approved I don't think there are any AQ schools that couldn't afford it.

(06-03-2011 07:24 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  SEC became the first conf to have a $3 Billion TV Deal...with ESPN working (and labeling) itself for many games as SECTV Network.

Let's be fair: they do the same thing for the Big East, sans the pricetag.


Also, paying players in the scheme of things would not a big deal for the BCS conferences: it would be for the lower ones though.

You could pay each football and men's scholarship basketball player a $10,000 a year stipend for less than $1 million per year per team. and realistcially, half of that could be funded from the video game licensing fees that the players they are based off of, currently get none of. It would actually cost you $980,000 a year per team. And that is asusming you want to go up to $10k. So, in the scheme of things, especially with all six BCS conferences getting a buttload more money, it would be done.

The down side, is by paying players, you make it much easier for rules to be broken, because it makes it easier to get away with paying players "extra benefits." It's not like it will slow it down any.