https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fe55d954-06...efend.html

If schools can start paying players whatever they want, the schools with P5 money will obviously be able to pay much, much more. I don't see how a CUSA (or MW, AAC or A10) school can compete in a money war against those with P5 patches on their jerseys.

(03-29-2018 12:26 PM)monarx Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fe55d954-06...efend.html

If schools can start paying players whatever they want, the schools with P5 money will obviously be able to pay much, much more. I don't see how a CUSA (or MW, AAC or A10) school can compete in a money war against those with P5 patches on their jerseys.

Its not like the typical G5 is winning most recruting battles vs the P5 anyway. However, Ive always thought that as along as the scholarship limit sat at 85---the G5 would be fine. Plenty of talent out there and as long as the P5's can only get 85 each--there will be plenty of quality players left over.

BUT---what if the P5 can give 85 scholarships and then pay walk-on's enough to cover their FCOA and then some? Thats like having an unlimited number of schollies....

Yeah, that could be a real problem for the G5.

On the upside---I dont think the schools want the liability and hassle that comes with making the players employees. I suspect, like it or not, the Olympic model is coming to college sports. There is a tremendous amount potential for abuse of such a system---but I dont see a way to stop it anymore. A week or two ago NCAA president Mark Emmert for the first time ever suggested that the Olympic model was something to consider. That was a HUGE change in tone by the NCAA (they had always been adamantly opposed to that position) and I had a feeling at the time that those comments were more significant than many realized.

What’s really going to sting is that the G5 will have to do the splitting. P5 can bear the cost so they don’t need to change a thing. How long can/will the G5 tolerate an untenable situation (where the P5/G5 gap starts to really resemble the one between FBS/FCS...hell, maybe FCS/D-2)? The P5 will only have to say, “Bye, Felicia.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I really don't know why the P-5 is opening up this can of worms. They already have a monopoly when it comes to the ability to earn money over the non P-5 conferences. So now they want to get into a biding war with themselves?

We can't even pay our coaches enough

Maybe I'm looking at this in a narrow view but to me fans watch college sports because of the connection to the school/team and not a player or 15 players or 85 players.

Yes we watch and buy things and pay a lot of money for tickets because of the actions of the players on the field or court . But I believe if you take every "star" out of FB and BB today. The same people would still be buying tickets and shirts and caps and anything else.

If it ever gets to where player A gets 10k and player Y only gets 1k....team will be a thing of the past. Then what if player A doesn't live up to his hype..can you lower the amount. Hell ask for a refund? I don't even seeing the P5 schools wanting something to be up to each conference. You are setting up a arms race that will create divisions in each of those conference between members. Then start to eat into millions and millions to the bottom line. Hell not all P5 schools are raking in a extra 50 million over cost. Most are close to being like us because even if they make 25 million more...there are already spending it

College sports is about the connection to the team/school and not the players

The big boys have so much money that I don't think they care if a 10k investment doesn't pan out.

(03-29-2018 12:26 PM)monarx Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fe55d954-06...efend.html

If schools can start paying players whatever they want, the schools with P5 money will obviously be able to pay much, much more. I don't see how a CUSA (or MW, AAC or A10) school can compete in a money war against those with P5 patches on their jerseys.

The one and ONLY way to slow down the p-5 efforts to totally monopolize college sports is for ALL others to refuse playing them in ANY sport. Let them try to fill in their schedules without us. They wouldnt be able to bring in body bag games for sure wins plus no return games allowing 7-8 home games per year like they have now. Also, they would beat up on each other reducing or hurting won-loss records, etc. Let them have their own March Madness, would need to invite every team thus half or more would have losing records.

(03-29-2018 01:56 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Maybe I'm looking at this in a narrow view but to me fans watch college sports because of the connection to the school/team and not a player or 15 players or 85 players.

Yes we watch and buy things and pay a lot of money for tickets because of the actions of the players on the field or court . But I believe if you take every "star" out of FB and BB today. The same people would still be buying tickets and shirts and caps and anything else.

If it ever gets to where player A gets 10k and player Y only gets 1k....team will be a thing of the past. Then what if player A doesn't live up to his hype..can you lower the amount. Hell ask for a refund? I don't even seeing the P5 schools wanting something to be up to each conference. You are setting up a arms race that will create divisions in each of those conference between members. Then start to eat into millions and millions to the bottom line. Hell not all P5 schools are raking in a extra 50 million over cost. Most are close to being like us because even if they make 25 million more...there are already spending it

College sports is about the connection to the team/school and not the players

I agree. I root for the name on the jersey first and foremost. If ODU was a D2 team, I'd still be as big of a fan. I enjoy watching the higher level competition, but mostly I just want the opportunity for success on the court/field to be equal amongst the competition so its fair. I'll never be a Duke fan, or KY fan, or UCLA or UNC fan no matter how good they become. I root for the school and the players that choose to represent the institution.

(03-29-2018 02:52 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 12:26 PM)monarx Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fe55d954-06...efend.html

If schools can start paying players whatever they want, the schools with P5 money will obviously be able to pay much, much more. I don't see how a CUSA (or MW, AAC or A10) school can compete in a money war against those with P5 patches on their jerseys.

The one and ONLY way to slow down the p-5 efforts to totally monopolize college sports is for ALL others to refuse playing them in ANY sport. Let them try to fill in their schedules without us. They wouldnt be able to bring in body bag games for sure wins plus no return games allowing 7-8 home games per year like they have now. Also, they would beat up on each other reducing or hurting won-loss records, etc. Let them have their own March Madness, would need to invite every team thus half or more would have losing records.

This would separate the top p-5 programs from the rest p-5 programs. The top p-5 programs would probably form one or two super-conferences in the process and the G5 could reunite with the lower p-5 programs. I like this...

(03-29-2018 01:58 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  The big boys have so much money that I don't think they care if a 10k investment doesn't pan out.

There are studies that show the top college players can be worth as much as $500k to their schools. I would guess the ACC and SEC and B10 would be willing to pay $200k or more for the right players. Thats going to start to cause some tension in the locker room when a guy is a bust, and a $10,000 guy or a walk-on starts to shine. I also imagine it could lead to contracts, which would keep a player at a school for a select amount of time, or buy outs to transfer etc. What a mess.

(03-29-2018 01:41 PM)Herd-in-ATL Wrote:  I really don't know why the P-5 is opening up this can of worms. They already have a monopoly when it comes to the ability to earn money over the non P-5 conferences. So now they want to get into a biding war with themselves?

The P5 isnt opening the can. They want nothing to do with it. There is a court case from the players that's pushing this train down the tracks. Depending on where it goes---you might be surprised who lands on what side of the paying players argument. If it becomes a straight-up-paying-players (as in they become school employees) you might see the Big10 and Notre Dame (possibly the even Pac12) lining up with many G5's in a straight amateur association. The SEC and Big12--along with some G5's will probably go with the paying players route.

That said--I dont think we are heading there next. I think the Olympic "amateur" model is the likely next stop and it might not be far off at all.

(03-29-2018 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 01:41 PM)Herd-in-ATL Wrote:  I really don't know why the P-5 is opening up this can of worms. They already have a monopoly when it comes to the ability to earn money over the non P-5 conferences. So now they want to get into a biding war with themselves?

The P5 isnt opening the can. They want nothing to do with it. There is a court case from the players that's pushing this train down the tracks. Depending on where it goes---you might be surprised who lands on what side of the paying players argument. If it becomes a straight-up-paying-players (as in they become school employees) you might see the Big10 and Notre Dame (possibly the even Pac12) lining up with many G5's in a straight amateur association. The SEC and Big12--along with some G5's will probably go with the paying players route.

That said--I dont think we are heading there next. I think the Olympic "amateur" model is the likely next stop and it might not be far off at all.

Might also add that this helps the poorer, less successful bottom feeders in p5 conferences realize they aren't going to be able to keep up with the Alabamas. They may opt out of the rat race, choosing to strengthen an amateur leagues, as well.

And this could all be stopped by the gov't waving their non-profit status around and letting them know pay for play for profit does not fit that description.

(03-29-2018 01:41 PM)Herd-in-ATL Wrote:  I really don't know why the P-5 is opening up this can of worms. They already have a monopoly when it comes to the ability to earn money over the non P-5 conferences. So now they want to get into a biding war with themselves?

They are not the ones opening the can

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-29-2018 03:10 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 01:58 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  The big boys have so much money that I don't think they care if a 10k investment doesn't pan out.

There are studies that show the top college players can be worth as much as $500k to their schools. I would guess the ACC and SEC and B10 would be willing to pay $200k or more for the right players. Thats going to start to cause some tension in the locker room when a guy is a bust, and a $10,000 guy or a walk-on starts to shine. I also imagine it could lead to contracts, which would keep a player at a school for a select amount of time, or buy outs to transfer etc. What a mess.

All things being equal college presidents are academics first by and large. The ultimate ruling may end up saying that players can market themselves but college presidents are not going to start paying college players million or even quarter million dollar salaries.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-29-2018 01:49 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We can't even pay our coaches enough

Of all the G5's we certainly can--we just won't (we refuse to--dumb and dumberer.)

In the Olympic model it would be big donors paying the players rather than the schools. But it would still be a money war. I could see big donors paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a players autographs for instance.

Schools will eventually be able to fill in currently impermissible benefits. As with everything Alabama and Texas will do so in a more lavish way than Purdue or Wake. And players at the top of the food chain will be able to market their image and name. Schools are not going to be minor league football employers. The implications for IRS and human resources alone would be insurmountable. It will mean that schools will be able to provide benefits that the NCAA may currently poo poo on. But it's not going to mean players are now riding in limos and getting bought houses by the school. For 85% of players nothing will change.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I think everyone is missing a key point (an earlier poster excepted). Right now, the P5 programs can take as many walkons as they like but can only put 85 on scholly. This means those potential walkons are likely to go to a school that does offer them a full ride. But if they can pay those walkons? In the 70’s Bear Bryant signed players that would never see the field for him just to keep them from other schools. This will spur a similar situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-30-2018 09:24 AM)blazr Wrote:  I think everyone is missing a key point (an earlier poster excepted). Right now, the P5 programs can take as many walkons as they like but can only put 85 on scholly. This means those potential walkons are likely to go to a school that does offer them a full ride. But if they can pay those walkons? In the 70’s Bear Bryant signed players that would never see the field for him just to keep them from other schools. This will spur a similar situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Careful...

Sign them to what? Non scholly scholly?. Of its not a scholarship with benefits what is it you are signing them to?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk