https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ssion=true

In their closing arguments last week, the plaintiffs suggested that conferences "permit the individual conferences to make their own determinations" in compensating players.

In response, former Congressman Tom McMillen, the leader of a Division I athletic directors organization, said leaving such decisions to the conferences "would be the Wild West."

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick took it to another level.

"It would be fascinating," Swarbrick told CBS Sports. "It would be a disaster … but fascinating. I think there is a very significant chance that ruling would produce a new wave of conference realignment."

Agree with Swarbrick.

We kind of sorta had a similar system before the NCAA imposed the cap on the number of scholarships.Some leagues capped some didn't so you had schools in Division I capping at 0 (Ivy) and 70 and some no cap.

My prediction.

Coaching pay will cool off in a hurry everywhere except the $100 million plus schools.

If I'm AD at Arkansas State I can drum up close to a million for players just by rolling my salary scale back 6 years.I'd rather give my head coach $450,000 and a $1.5 million assistant budget and a million for players than spend that money on a head coach and assistants.

I'm not paying all the players either. If a kid isn't drawing much FBS action, a full ride and cost of attendance is good deal. I'm putting my money in a starting QB, one or two good receivers, a really good defensive end, a middle LB and a free safety.

I can’t decide if I like it or not. I’m cautiously pessimistic about paying players beyond scholarship. The complaint about not being able to have a job and playing college sports is a load - I did both and I know many people that did, too. I’d be open to the idea of a minimum wage stipend with a cap of like 15 hours per week.

If that proposal does occur, the gap between the haves and have nots (and the wills and will nots) will widen. I imagine we will finally see a separation of 40-60 schools. Then another separation of 60-80 schools. Academic first institutions may choose to hold back.

(10-22-2018 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I can’t decide if I like it or not. I’m cautiously pessimistic about paying players beyond scholarship. The complaint about not being able to have a job and playing college sports is a load - I did both and I know many people that did, too. I’d be open to the idea of a minimum wage stipend with a cap of like 15 hours per week.

If that proposal does occur, the gap between the haves and have nots (and the wills and will nots) will widen. I imagine we will finally see a separation of 40-60 schools. Then another separation of 60-80 schools. Academic first institutions may choose to hold back.

The schools in trouble are the ones who cannot afford to match salary or payroll and have to compete in a conference with the schools that can afford to pay a lot in salary and payroll.

The poor folks will scale back paying big salaries for coaches and target a few positions with cash and carry on.

The modern FBS player really can't work except in summer and even then needs a job that allows them to be on campus every day for "voluntary" workouts.

If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

(10-22-2018 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Academic first institutions may choose to hold back.

Not necessarily. Depends on how their alumni and donors feel about it. For example, there's no frickin' way that Duke basketball goes "amateur" while North Carolina hands each player a six-figure check above the table.

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

(10-22-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

You will have those who compensate competitively, those who cap compensation will make up tier II, and those who cap compensation at low levels will make up tier III. There may be some among the Tier III everyone else that would step up to tier II, or maybe a few in tier II that would step up to Tier I or drop down to the Tier III, but I don't see any of them in Tier I or Tier II giving up football, or refusing to compensate at all.

I don't seen anyone listed in Tier I or Tier II that would simply refuse to pay at all. They all make too much off of athletics not to.

What I could see being dropped are non revenues beyond those women's sports that would satisfy Title IX. Men's football, basketball, baseball, and hockey would remain. Women's basketball, softball, & soccer would likely stay and toss in volleyball and gymnastics to keep up to enough scholarships to offset the men's sports. Country club sports and track and field might have to fall under the US Olympic committee and its rules.

If there is a two division philosophical split where those who are academic minded end up on one side of the camp vs. those who are pay for play that would be an interesting development indeed.

The proposal is some of the PAC, ACC all of the MAC, academies would all be in the amateur grouping while the SEC, B1G and southern football schools all be in the pay for play grouping.

We know why Notre Dame is considering it since their most competitive football days are past and they are really hanging around for the prestige. What if a school like Texas decided to think the same way to be associated with more academic focused schools?

The pay 4 play division ends up 48 schools. They'll decide the post season on the field with an 8 team playoff. The other 80 schools in FBS are reorganized into a BCS and compete for bowl games.

That could benefit the G5's since they would on relatively even recruiting grounds with the Notre Dame's the Miami FL and the Stanford's if they stick to the amateur model. If they keep the bowl system it would be more opportunity for programs that currently don't have much to play in a NYD bowl. The attention however would not be as high during the regular season for the ND's, Miami's and Stanford's.

There's another article from 2015 linked in the OP article where the schools are separated into two predicted tiers, though it doesn't really explain their method. Also, they're missing Duke, Eastern Michigan, Charlotte (soon to join FBS at the time of writing), and UAB (dropping FBS at the time), as well as Coastal Carolina and Liberty (neither FBS at the time). Duke is mentioned in the article as likely lower tier, and I assume the other 5 would be lower tier as well.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ociations/

Pay Tier (74)
ACC (10): Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami-FL, NC State, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
American (7): Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida
Big 12 (9): Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia
Big Ten (13): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin
CUSA (4): Louisiana Tech, Marshall, UTEP, Western Kentucky
Ind (1): BYU
MWC (6): Boise State, Colorado State, Nevada, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah State
Pac-12 (10): Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC (13): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M
Sun Belt (1): Louisiana-Lafayette

No-Pay Tier (56)
ACC (4): Boston College, Duke, Virginia, Wake Forest
American (5): Navy, SMU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa
Big 12 (1): TCU
Big Ten (1): Northwestern
CUSA (10): Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Middle Tennessee, North Texas, Old Dominion, Rice, Southern Miss, UAB, UTSA
Ind (5): Army, Liberty, Massachusetts, New Mexico State, Notre Dame
MAC (12): Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Miami-OH, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Toledo, Western Michigan
MWC (6): Air Force, Fresno State, Hawaii, New Mexico, San Jose State, Wyoming
Pac-12 (2): California, Stanford
SEC (1): Vanderbilt
Sun Belt (9): Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Louisiana-Monroe, South Alabama, Texas State, Troy

(10-22-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

You will have those who compensate competitively, those who cap compensation will make up tier II, and those who cap compensation at low levels will make up tier III. There may be some among the Tier III everyone else that would step up to tier II, or maybe a few in tier II that would step up to Tier I or drop down to the Tier III, but I don't see any of them in Tier I or Tier II giving up football, or refusing to compensate at all.

I don't seen anyone listed in Tier I or Tier II that would simply refuse to pay at all. They all make too much off of athletics not to.

What I could see being dropped are non revenues beyond those women's sports that would satisfy Title IX. Men's football, basketball, baseball, and hockey would remain. Women's basketball, softball, & soccer would likely stay and toss in volleyball and gymnastics to keep up to enough scholarships to offset the men's sports. Country club sports and track and field might have to fall under the US Olympic committee and its rules.

Thats what I was wondering. If your paying them---and they are employess---then Title9 ceases to be an issue. Those 85 scholarships no longer need to be offset. Also, isnt that a major issue that missing in this pay-for-play argument? No, the athletes are not compensated like they would be on the "for profit free market"---but the "for profit free market" is also not required to lose revenue providing a women's league that has no reasonable chance of making any money. i mean, womens sports is largely a money losing proposition---and much of it only exists due to the Title9 need to offset those 85 mens scholarships with an adequate number of womens scholarship opportunities.

BCS
G5 leagues+
Washington, BYU, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Notre Dame
Army, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Wake, Georgia Tech, Miami Fl

P4P
SEC, B1G+
WVU, VT, NC St, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, Iowa St, K-State, OU, OSU
Texas Tech, Texas, Utah, Arizona St, Wash St, Oregon, OSU, UCLA, USC

(10-22-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

You will have those who compensate competitively, those who cap compensation will make up tier II, and those who cap compensation at low levels will make up tier III. There may be some among the Tier III everyone else that would step up to tier II, or maybe a few in tier II that would step up to Tier I or drop down to the Tier III, but I don't see any of them in Tier I or Tier II giving up football, or refusing to compensate at all.

I don't seen anyone listed in Tier I or Tier II that would simply refuse to pay at all. They all make too much off of athletics not to.

What I could see being dropped are non revenues beyond those women's sports that would satisfy Title IX. Men's football, basketball, baseball, and hockey would remain. Women's basketball, softball, & soccer would likely stay and toss in volleyball and gymnastics to keep up to enough scholarships to offset the men's sports. Country club sports and track and field might have to fall under the US Olympic committee and its rules.

Thats what I was wondering. If your paying them---and they are employess---then Title9 ceases to be an issue. Those 85 scholarships no longer need to be offset. Also, isnt that a major issue that missing in this pay-for-play argument? No, the athletes are not compensated like they would be on the "for profit free market"---but the "for profit free market" is also not required to lose revenue providing a women's league that has no reasonable chance of making any money. i mean, womens sports is largely a money losing proposition---and much of it only exists due to the Title9 need to offset those 85 mens scholarships with an adequate number of womens scholarship opportunities.

So just ditch all amateur sports? They employees are not students also? The P5 schools still have the TV contracts though

(10-22-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

You will have those who compensate competitively, those who cap compensation will make up tier II, and those who cap compensation at low levels will make up tier III. There may be some among the Tier III everyone else that would step up to tier II, or maybe a few in tier II that would step up to Tier I or drop down to the Tier III, but I don't see any of them in Tier I or Tier II giving up football, or refusing to compensate at all.

I don't seen anyone listed in Tier I or Tier II that would simply refuse to pay at all. They all make too much off of athletics not to.

What I could see being dropped are non revenues beyond those women's sports that would satisfy Title IX. Men's football, basketball, baseball, and hockey would remain. Women's basketball, softball, & soccer would likely stay and toss in volleyball and gymnastics to keep up to enough scholarships to offset the men's sports. Country club sports and track and field might have to fall under the US Olympic committee and its rules.

Thats what I was wondering. If your paying them---and they are employess---then Title9 ceases to be an issue. Those 85 scholarships no longer need to be offset. Also, isnt that a major issue that missing in this pay-for-play argument? No, the athletes are not compensated like they would be on the "for profit free market"---but the "for profit free market" is also not required to lose revenue providing a women's league that has no reasonable chance of making any money. i mean, womens sports is largely a money losing proposition---and much of it only exists due to the Title9 need to offset those 85 mens scholarships with an adequate number of womens scholarship opportunities.

I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

Athletic Departments would likely add an accounting firm to their overhead to handle these matters for athletes.

But it would be interesting to see how it would play out.

(10-22-2018 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  There's another article from 2015 linked in the OP article where the schools are separated into two predicted tiers, though it doesn't really explain their method. Also, they're missing Duke, Eastern Michigan, Charlotte (soon to join FBS at the time of writing), and UAB (dropping FBS at the time), as well as Coastal Carolina and Liberty (neither FBS at the time). Duke is mentioned in the article as likely lower tier, and I assume the other 5 would be lower tier as well.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ociations/

Pay Tier (74)
ACC (10): Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami-FL, NC State, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
American (7): Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida
Big 12 (9): Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia
Big Ten (13): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin
CUSA (4): Louisiana Tech, Marshall, UTEP, Western Kentucky
Ind (1): BYU
MWC (6): Boise State, Colorado State, Nevada, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah State
Pac-12 (10): Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC (13): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M
Sun Belt (1): Louisiana-Lafayette

Why would any of the G5 elect to be in the pay tier when they can't afford it?

The concept is ND and Stanford along with academically minded P5 decide to push the idea of a new split for those who want to stay the amateur route. With those schools moving down to essentially join the G5 and taking the bowl system with them it would benefit all the current G5.

The new non-pay tier keeps the bowl system but sets the rules to their liking. Requiring a 7-5 record (6-6 APR back up) would keep the number of bowls around 18 or 20. All conference champs guaranteed a NYD bowl with at-larges filled by ranking. Rose Bowl could be Notre Dame vs. Boise State for example. Orange Bowl could be Georgia Tech vs. UCF. It would be mainly P5 like schools in the very biggest bowl games but it would not preclude an Appy St. in there if they had a Top 10 team. Its just all the athletes would be 2 to 3 star athletes in the non-pay tier with out the 4-5 star studs.

(10-22-2018 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 10:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I don't see that.

I think you could have some that say "not playing" and choose to not compensate and refuse to play those who do.

Everyone else will cobble along.

It probably won't make a big difference in results on the field other than some richer programs that struggle in recruiting can pay their way out of their recruiting disadvantages.

You will have those who compensate competitively, those who cap compensation will make up tier II, and those who cap compensation at low levels will make up tier III. There may be some among the Tier III everyone else that would step up to tier II, or maybe a few in tier II that would step up to Tier I or drop down to the Tier III, but I don't see any of them in Tier I or Tier II giving up football, or refusing to compensate at all.

I don't seen anyone listed in Tier I or Tier II that would simply refuse to pay at all. They all make too much off of athletics not to.

What I could see being dropped are non revenues beyond those women's sports that would satisfy Title IX. Men's football, basketball, baseball, and hockey would remain. Women's basketball, softball, & soccer would likely stay and toss in volleyball and gymnastics to keep up to enough scholarships to offset the men's sports. Country club sports and track and field might have to fall under the US Olympic committee and its rules.

Thats what I was wondering. If your paying them---and they are employess---then Title9 ceases to be an issue. Those 85 scholarships no longer need to be offset. Also, isnt that a major issue that missing in this pay-for-play argument? No, the athletes are not compensated like they would be on the "for profit free market"---but the "for profit free market" is also not required to lose revenue providing a women's league that has no reasonable chance of making any money. i mean, womens sports is largely a money losing proposition---and much of it only exists due to the Title9 need to offset those 85 mens scholarships with an adequate number of womens scholarship opportunities.

I think there would be compromise here. The schools would keep tax exempt status for continued Title IX compliance. Therefore women's team sports would be kept. All other non revenue that coincide with Olympic sports would probably be kept under the auspices of the U.S. Olympic committee and would remain at the university level but with corporate sponsorship.

The schools that would be involved with compensation would happy to keep women's basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball in that case. I think a player's compensation would be offset for tax purposes by the full cost of attendance and the tax they would owe would be on the amounts exceeding that, minus insurance against injury and medical insurance, and other acceptable expenses.

Athletic Departments would likely add an accounting firm to their overhead to handle these matters for athletes.

But it would be interesting to see how it would play out.

I think that is the compromise. Mens football and basketball players get paid. Those scholarships no longer need to be offset for Title9 purposes. The players get no scholarship. Instead they are paid---and that pay will be based on the marktplace and may or may not exceed (or even equal) the cost of attending the school. Womens sports can be vastly cut back since there is no longer a Ttile9 reason to keep such a large number of women on sports scholarships.

The high revenue schools will likely leave women's sports alone---but the G5 can take that saved revenue from cutting back some womens sports and use it to play players. Additionally, if we are after a free market---not all players will be paid equally. Some will not even be paid the value of a full scholarship--while some will be paid much more.

I dont like that solution---but thats the harsh reality of what a free market solution would probably look like. Plus---you going to have highly paid kids who dont pan out getting fired.....that would be a pretty ugly new reality as well. And if its a free market---dont transfer rules have to change to recognize the employee's right to work where and for whom they wish? Will contract disputes, agents, and hold outs become part of college sports? Also---as employees---would they need to be anymore than part time students to qualify to play for the team? Hell---need they even attend the schools at all? I mean--are they just hired guns (that actually was very common in the very early days of college football)? I see the law of unintended consequences lurking everywhere on this one.....yuck.....

(10-22-2018 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the organizing principle ever becomes "how much to compensate players", I think the results would be 3 divisions in the upper tier at the minimum, and that those divisions would yield much better competition models for football than what we currently have.

I could envision an upper tier of:
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Arizona, Arizona State, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, N.C. State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Penn State, Southern California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia Tech, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

A mid tier of:
Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, California, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Duke, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Miami, Memphis, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, S.M.U., South Florida, Syracuse, T.C.U., U.C.L.A., Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Washington State

And tier 3 of everyone else in the current FBS.

I do think Boise State fits in the mid-tier as well. Fresno State and San Diego State as well. The academies of the military are different from the 3 tiers.

(10-22-2018 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I can’t decide if I like it or not. I’m cautiously pessimistic about paying players beyond scholarship. The complaint about not being able to have a job and playing college sports is a load - I did both and I know many people that did, too. I’d be open to the idea of a minimum wage stipend with a cap of like 15 hours per week.

If that proposal does occur, the gap between the haves and have nots (and the wills and will nots) will widen. I imagine we will finally see a separation of 40-60 schools. Then another separation of 60-80 schools. Academic first institutions may choose to hold back.

Like you BePcr07, I also have mixed feelings about this. But, I have to agree with the other guy they interviewed who said that this had been in the works for awhile now. I am surprised Ed O’Bannon didn’t go further in his lawsuit and do what these guys did. It does make a lot of sense. However, you have to look at how this will eventually affect the other NCAA divisions as well. I can see D2 & NAIA hopping on this bandwagon as well. Oddly enough, the only one I don’t see it affecting is D3, since there are no scholarships on that division. Two things I’d be open to are this: 1. Minimum wage stipend with a cap agreed upon by both players & coaches. 2. Those athletes who are really struggling financially would be able to accept gifts from anyone, so long as it doesn’t occur during the recruiting process and the $$’s were obtained lawfully. (i.e. no illegal drug $$’s). Basically, this means if a coach, AD, or even a booster could give a student athlete money so long as it didn’t occur during the recruiting process. I would even be open to allow a certain $$ amount during the recruiting process too, if the whole conference would allow it.

If the players wind up winning this lawsuit, if I’m SMU, I would sue the pants off the NCAA, and demand compensation for $$’s during the death penalty years.

(10-22-2018 10:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  There's another article from 2015 linked in the OP article where the schools are separated into two predicted tiers, though it doesn't really explain their method. Also, they're missing Duke, Eastern Michigan, Charlotte (soon to join FBS at the time of writing), and UAB (dropping FBS at the time), as well as Coastal Carolina and Liberty (neither FBS at the time). Duke is mentioned in the article as likely lower tier, and I assume the other 5 would be lower tier as well.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ociations/

Pay Tier (74)
ACC (10): Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami-FL, NC State, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
American (7): Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida
Big 12 (9): Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia
Big Ten (13): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin
CUSA (4): Louisiana Tech, Marshall, UTEP, Western Kentucky
Ind (1): BYU
MWC (6): Boise State, Colorado State, Nevada, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah State
Pac-12 (10): Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
SEC (13): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M
Sun Belt (1): Louisiana-Lafayette

No-Pay Tier (56)
ACC (4): Boston College, Duke, Virginia, Wake Forest
American (5): Navy, SMU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa
Big 12 (1): TCU
Big Ten (1): Northwestern
CUSA (10): Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Middle Tennessee, North Texas, Old Dominion, Rice, Southern Miss, UAB, UTSA
Ind (5): Army, Liberty, Massachusetts, New Mexico State, Notre Dame
MAC (12): Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Miami-OH, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Toledo, Western Michigan
MWC (6): Air Force, Fresno State, Hawaii, New Mexico, San Jose State, Wyoming
Pac-12 (2): California, Stanford
SEC (1): Vanderbilt
Sun Belt (9): Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Louisiana-Monroe, South Alabama, Texas State, Troy

Hate to say it, but I would put Liberty in the pay window, since they were willing to pay cost of attendance when they were a Big South school, have more money than they know what to do with it, and are looking at being the Fundamental Notre Dame. Being grouped with the big boys is how they see themselves being able to draw students to their online programs and donor dollars.

Just pointing out for everyone putting TCU in the lower bracket, you are clearly not familiar with the sheer amount of West Texas oil money that school commands.

Rice is even richer but will not choose to pay for play. TCU definitely will.

SMU is an interesting case.

They could actually afford it easily too and (ironically) legally buy their way back to the back time.

Baylor is the one that needs to be worried.

Of the Big 4 private schools they have the least money