Looks like this is the rule for the time being...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...e-athletes

Stipend will happen.

Exceeding cost of attendance creates too many problems.

As for the NFL and NBA age limits, that's easily addressed. Don't permit scouts of leagues that behave in a way you don't like to have access to players or have film.

(09-17-2013 11:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Stipend will happen.

Exceeding cost of attendance creates too many problems.

As for the NFL and NBA age limits, that's easily addressed. Don't permit scouts of leagues that behave in a way you don't like to have access to players or have film.

What Emmert was saying is they won't change the amateur model. But they will, one way or another, pass the stipend, which is intended to cover real costs that aren't covered by the scholarship. On academic scholarships, they may cover the "full cost of attendance." The "full cost of attendance" is apparently pretty well documented as part of the financial aid process for students. But on athletic scholarships, they are limited. The $2,000 won't cover that full cost. But it is a step in that direction.

I can foresee schools starting to do what Oregon has done. You all may have seen that swanky barber shop in their clubhouse. What is to keep a school from building a movie theater or Dave and Buster's type atmosphere where students can still get in with their student ID (which they pay dues to utilize) and the athletes get in under the same rules (with an ID that is covered under their full scholarship). Huge state schools can easily justify building a town square of sorts where the student ID gives access, but who's to say that certain student organizations cannot lease or reserve the space sometimes? In addition to the typical school related clothes in a student center shop, why not have a few designer stores where student account credit can be used? A jewelry store, a travel agent, a small used car dealer, a tattoo parlor, a dance club... you name it.

Basically, bring all the things that players would spend their money on with a stipend and let them utilize a full scholarship student account. Most of these P5 campuses have at least 15,000 students and can easily absorb the cost of building a small town on campus. Problem (mostly) solved.

$2000 a semester is plenty. Too many problems associated with anything more than that or allowing them to earn money on their own from boosters and fans. Most of these players will never earn a dime playing professionally so the last thing that needs to be done is to de-emphasize the academic side like Deford suggests. At schools of almost every size, a college athlete not only graduates without the massive debt the rest of us have, they also have a leg up in obtaining jobs thanks to their athletic participation. Tuition, room and board, training table, notoriety, etc. are all real benefits to student athletes. $500 a month will pay for several meals or other entertainment.

I've seen players from ASU take advantage of their scholarship and leave school with a Masters degree and zero loan debt while playing at an all-conference level. People who minimize the benefits that athletes receive are just wrong.

None of what he said matters. None of it. Because if the Courts side with O'Bannon the NCAA will probably have to "pay" players beyond their scholarship and/or allow players to earn an income via other means.

(09-19-2013 10:14 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  None of what he said matters. None of it. Because if the Courts side with O'Bannon the NCAA will probably have to "pay" players beyond their scholarship and/or allow players to earn an income via other means.

Correct. The NCAA and the presidents will not be making this decision.

The courts could give O'Bannion et al the same kind of decision the USFL got too. It's not a foregone conclusion that the NCAA losing this battle costs them heavily, since the courts don't always make decisions that make sense...

(09-19-2013 01:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The courts could give O'Bannion et al the same kind of decision the USFL got too. It's not a foregone conclusion that the NCAA losing this battle costs them heavily, since the courts don't always make decisions that make sense...

I think it is well within the realm of possibility that a court could rule payment is due for use of likeness when used for commercial purposes other than the live telecast of the game.

The reality is there isn't a lot of value out there once you get past the live telecast and apply the news and comment exceptions. The value of an ESPN Classic replay divided between the 100ish players who make it on the field is practically nothing.