Want to unionize and be an employee instead of an athlete?

[Brass Knob]

This is somewhat addressed to you, but it's more along the lines of my general sentiments:

Leaving the NW story aside, trainers' salaries, coaches' salaries, whatever was spent to persuade the recruit to attend a certain university and the like are not 'extras that [athletes] receive as benefits from being on scholarship.' Those are the costs born by the university to attract and retain a quasi-employee on a year-to-year basis.

These kids are getting exploited, putting their immediate health and future quality of life at stake to line the pockets of administrators, whether it be by ticket and merchandising sells or increased enrollment numbers, and to maybe (although unlikely) one day turn their skill into a career. To make it all the worse, a huge chunk of the athletes bringing in revenues are from disadvantaged upbringings.

They will eventually receive something resembling proper remuneration, and it will not kill major college athletics. And on the slight off-chance it does, it deserved to fade away anyhow.

Right, I understand what you are saying. I was not necessarily referring to that being considered as "player income" or anything like that. I was addressing the idea from a poster that if tuition is $10,000 per year that it does not necessarily cost the school $10,000 for that football player to attend the school on a full ride. That is why I brought up all the salaries and extras expenses that needed to be included, for the actual cost per player but not necessarily benefit received per player.

[BorderPatrol]

I guess you taught your kids to never question the status quo because of morbid fear about unknown consequences down the road?

This goes along with the question I asked earlier in another thread...

The problem with Arkansas media is y'all are always in a "wait and see" pattern. (See HDN fiasco).

Maybe it is time to ask the tough questions, instead of speculating.

bp

[Fan1958]

Y'all got it all wrong.

Let's set it up like the MLB farm system.  Here's how it would work:

There are 32 NFL teams and approximately 128 D-1 college teams (convenient how that works out).  Firstly, designate the lowest 32 teams the equivalent of rookie ball, the next 32 in the tier as A ball, the next 32 AA and the 32 upper crust as AAA.

After that, assign a team from each tier to an NFL franchise.  Since Arkansas is located geographically near Texas, Arkansas could be designated as the Cowboys' AA affiliate.

Now the draft starts.  Each NFL team drafts HS players and assigns them to the college based upon the player's ability.  Conferences can then be drawn at each level, maybe four 8 team conferences.   The colleges are necessary in order to have a loyal and built-in fan base.  You don't want to have 800 or so fans show up as would happen if the NFL started its own true farm system.  And since the "student" part of "student-athlete" is a farce, nothing will really change.  And with a draft system, there should be parity, for a few years at least.

The players can be paid on a scale similar to minor league players but still be required to attend class.  The only way to make the real big bucks for the first few years is to rake in a big signing bonus.  Plus, the players are employees of the parent NFL team and can join the NFLPA if they want to be in a union.

At the end of each year, the NFL evaluates the players at each level and decides if the player needs to move up or stay where he is or maybe even be released.  This might cause a bit of a problem academically but I am sure the details can be worked out, especially if the money is right.

The NFL teams can then draft to maintain a full roster at each level.  This also keeps the vendors that print programs, sell the jerseys and other gear busy and profitable as the rosters could turn over every year or so. 

[Wahls]

The bottom line is that college football and basketball are great products in high demand.

The market will sort itself out. It won't destroy anything.

[texas tush hog]

The bottom line is that college football and basketball are great products in high demand.

The market will sort itself out. It won't destroy anything.

You don't fix what ain't broke.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

This is somewhat addressed to you, but it's more along the lines of my general sentiments:

Leaving the NW story aside, trainers' salaries, coaches' salaries, whatever was spent to persuade the recruit to attend a certain university and the like are not 'extras that [athletes] receive as benefits from being on scholarship.' Those are the costs born by the university to attract and retain a quasi-employee on a year-to-year basis.

These kids are getting exploited, putting their immediate health and future quality of life at stake to line the pockets of administrators, whether it be by ticket and merchandising sells or increased enrollment numbers, and to maybe (although unlikely) one day turn their skill into a career. To make it all the worse, a huge chunk of the athletes bringing in revenues are from disadvantaged upbringings.

They will eventually receive something resembling proper remuneration, and it will not kill major college athletics. And on the slight off-chance it does, it deserved to fade away anyhow.

Let's say that you are right in your opinion. And let's also say that the ruling for players at Northwestern to form a union (something that they as employees might do) is a precedent that spreads throughout all of college football.

In that circumstance players might receive a certain percentage of income from licensed athletic apparel sales that relate to their sport. It would follow that they should also retain the rights to the use of their image by companies like EA Sports. All of this assuming that the NCAA alters their definition of what is an "Amateur Athlete", so that these kids can get paid and still participate.

If they have become employees then the cost or value of their scholarship (room and board and all fees as announced by the school that they attend) now becomes a taxable benefit. Same can be said of the free medical care that they receive as well as the top level training that they receive. And let's not forget about the money that they would receive from apparel sales and use of their image, which will likely be classified as "unearned income" and therefore taxed at a higher rate.

Is there any real reason for these kids to even be a student and attend class? They are now, after all, employees, not students. So maybe you take away the scholarship that would be a taxable benefit and now you require the athletes to pay for their own room & board, just like employees. And even if you throw in the training and free medical care provided by the team and it doesn't become a taxable benefit, what you now have is a bunch of young, professional hired guns playing football for a school, instead of having student athletes and additionally, now they have tax issues to deal with.

And maybe, because they are now employees and form a union, what happens when one chapter of this national players union is unhappy (example, at Arkansas) about their practice conditions, coaching, level of discipline or more likely, that which they receive in terms of compensation? Do they go on strike for a game or two or half a season? So Donors, Season Ticket Holders and Fans are left holding the bag? And what about t.v. contracts? Arkansas is scheduled for "x" number of t.v. games and now they can't fulfill their legal obligations as detailed in the SEC t.v. contract?

And aside of all of that, if you thought recruiting was competitive before, just let this "pay for play" scenario play out and you'll see the competitive gap between the top level schools and those that are trying to get there, grow even wider.

Personally, I think that this is a case of a minority of players (as a percentage of all college football players) starting something that could hurt the majority of college football players, many of who are probably very happy with having a scholarship, being able to play college football and get an education.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

[hoghiker]

So they should have a coke and a smile.

Maybe some coke and da weed.

[Inhogswetrust]

Y'all got it all wrong.

Let's set it up like the MLB farm system.  Here's how it would work:

There are 32 NFL teams and approximately 128 D-1 college teams (convenient how that works out).  Firstly, designate the lowest 32 teams the equivalent of rookie ball, the next 32 in the tier as A ball, the next 32 AA and the 32 upper crust as AAA.

After that, assign a team from each tier to an NFL franchise.  Since Arkansas is located geographically near Texas, Arkansas could be designated as the Cowboys' AA affiliate.

Now the draft starts.  Each NFL team drafts HS players and assigns them to the college based upon the player's ability.  Conferences can then be drawn at each level, maybe four 8 team conferences.   The colleges are necessary in order to have a loyal and built-in fan base.  You don't want to have 800 or so fans show up as would happen if the NFL started its own true farm system.  And since the "student" part of "student-athlete" is a farce, nothing will really change.  And with a draft system, there should be parity, for a few years at least.

The players can be paid on a scale similar to minor league players but still be required to attend class.  The only way to make the real big bucks for the first few years is to rake in a big signing bonus.  Plus, the players are employees of the parent NFL team and can join the NFLPA if they want to be in a union.

At the end of each year, the NFL evaluates the players at each level and decides if the player needs to move up or stay where he is or maybe even be released.  This might cause a bit of a problem academically but I am sure the details can be worked out, especially if the money is right.

The NFL teams can then draft to maintain a full roster at each level.  This also keeps the vendors that print programs, sell the jerseys and other gear busy and profitable as the rosters could turn over every year or so. 

Really dumb. If you want to see college athletic departments go completely bankrupt then try this. WHAT makes you think because colleges have a current built in fan base that a college becoming a true minor league would continue to draw that many fans to games. What incentive would donors or season ticket holders have for attending lower level league games. I'd bet my house that there would only be a few of thousand fans if that (See Ivy league and DII schools) attending games AND a lot of donors and season ticket holders would go away. If you want empty stadiums try it. Especially If you think the Hogs should only be AA instead of AAA! What makes you think Arkansas would only be AA worthy. Also why the Cowboys. You do realize that the campus and a whole lot of of the state are actually closer to the KC Chiefs than the Cowboys. That academic problem IS the main issue though. Do you honestly think that schools would give athletic scholarships and not have some sort of academic requirements.

[Hogfaniam]

Just allow the players to receive payment for the revenue that their image generates.  How much money would Dmac and Felix had made off all those 5 and 25 jerseys that were sold?  Let them receive payment for appearances and apparel sales.  It's called incentive to become a better more marketable player.  It's called Commission.  It would bring above table some of the below table stuff that is happening now.  A booster wants to pay a player to come to Fayetteville,  fine.  Fill out a 1099 or put them on the payroll as a salesman and have them show up at a board meeting or golf tourney, great.

How much extra could Stacey Lewis have made showing up at corporate golf tourneys.  How much more could the university have made because that would be part of the fee too.

The kids that don't have star power still get what they get now.  Everybody wins.

[Fan1958]

Really dumb. If you want to see college athletic departments go completely bankrupt then try this. WHAT makes you think because colleges have a current built in fan base that a college becoming a true minor league would continue to draw that many fans to games. What incentive would donors or season ticket holders have for attending lower level league games. I'd bet my house that there would only be a few of thousand fans if that (See Ivy league and DII schools) attending games AND a lot of donors and season ticket holders would go away. If you want empty stadiums try it. Especially If you think the Hogs should only be AA instead of AAA! What makes you think Arkansas would only be AA worthy. Also why the Cowboys. You do realize that the campus and a whole lot of of the state are actually closer to the KC Chiefs than the Cowboys. That academic problem IS the main issue though. Do you honestly think that school would give athletic scholarships and not have some sort of academic requirements.

Sarcasm detector not working much?

[Inhogswetrust]

Sarcasm detector not working much?

One of my weaknesses. Carry on.

[Inhogswetrust]

Let's say that you are right in your opinion. And let's also say that the ruling for players at Northwestern to form a union (something that they as employees might do) is a precedent that spreads throughout all of college football.

In that circumstance players might receive a certain percentage of income from licensed athletic apparel sales that relate to their sport. It would follow that they should also retain the rights to the use of their image by companies like EA Sports. All of this assuming that the NCAA alters their definition of what is an "Amateur Athlete", so that these kids can get paid and still participate.

If they have become employees then the cost or value of their scholarship (room and board and all fees as announced by the school that they attend) now becomes a taxable benefit. Same can be said of the free medical care that they receive as well as the top level training that they receive. And let's not forget about the money that they would receive from apparel sales and use of their image, which will likely be classified as "unearned income" and therefore taxed at a higher rate.

Is there any real reason for these kids to even be a student and attend class? They are now, after all, employees, not students. So maybe you take away the scholarship that would be a taxable benefit and now you require the athletes to pay for their own room & board, just like employees. And even if you throw in the training and free medical care provided by the team and it doesn't become a taxable benefit, what you now have is a bunch of young, professional hired guns playing football for a school, instead of having student athletes and additionally, now they have tax issues to deal with.

And maybe, because they are now employees and form a union, what happens when one chapter of this national players union is unhappy (example, at Arkansas) about their practice conditions, coaching, level of discipline or more likely, that which they receive in terms of compensation? Do they go on strike for a game or two or half a season? So Donors, Season Ticket Holders and Fans are left holding the bag? And what about t.v. contracts? Arkansas is scheduled for "x" number of t.v. games and now they can't fulfill their legal obligations as detailed in the SEC t.v. contract?

And aside of all of that, if you thought recruiting was competitive before, just let this "pay for play" scenario play out and you'll see the competitive gap between the top level schools and those that are trying to get there, grow even wider.

Personally, I think that this is a case of a minority of players (as a percentage of all college football players) starting something that could hurt the majority of college football players, many of who are probably very happy with having a scholarship, being able to play college football and get an education.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

I've known quite a few players ands some that went on to play pro ball. I guarantee this part is correct. Now do all players think their scholarship should be more than now then yes that's true. However except for the minority of those that are obviously going to get drafted and make big bucks they don't want a "true" individual pay for play. They would be happy with this so called "full cost" that's been proposed and supported by a lot of schools and the SEC. A lot of players see this union thing as a way to get it and cut down on time constrains and get a couple of other things that despite what Fatty and others may think I actually support but not with a union. Unions seem to start out with good intentions and morph into things much more and unrelated to those good intentions and fairness. A lot of people don't understand or want to believe it. MOST college players KNOW they have a very, very small chance at the pros if any chance at all and that their college experience is the last of their playing days.

[Mike_e]

Just allow the players to receive payment for the revenue that their image generates.  How much money would Dmac and Felix had made off all those 5 and 25 jerseys that were sold?  Let them receive payment for appearances and apparel sales.  It's called incentive to become a better more marketable player.  It's called Commission.  It would bring above table some of the below table stuff that is happening now.  A booster wants to pay a player to come to Fayetteville,  fine.  Fill out a 1099 or put them on the payroll as a salesman and have them show up at a board meeting or golf tourney, great.

How much extra could Stacey Lewis have made showing up at corporate golf tourneys.  How much more could the university have made because that would be part of the fee too.

The kids that don't have star power still get what they get now.  Everybody wins.

The schools that could best provide opportunities for this revenue are already getting the lions share of the 'star' recruits.  Do you really want them having an even bigger advantage?

[bphi11ips]

Why do 110,000 fans regularly pack stadiums to see a sport played at a level far below the NFL?

[Wildhog]

Anyone should be able to profit from their image/autograph. 

[Hogfaniam]

The schools that could best provide opportunities for this revenue are already getting the lions share of the 'star' recruits.  Do you really want them having an even bigger advantage?

Market economics man, market economics.  Only about half of any team can 'star' at any one time and that is a high estimate.   How many bmoc players get buried on bama's bench that could go elsewhere and be a star?  The market will even it out.

[Fatty McGee]

Which media people thrive on...................................

As do you, if one reads most of your chicken little posts.

[Fatty McGee]

The schools that could best provide opportunities for this revenue are already getting the lions share of the 'star' recruits.  Do you really want them having an even bigger advantage?

How much bigger could it possibly be?  Besides, recruiting is a function of geography more than anything.

[Fatty McGee]

Really dumb. If you want to see college athletic departments go completely bankrupt then try this. WHAT makes you think because colleges have a current built in fan base that a college becoming a true minor league would continue to draw that many fans to games. What incentive would donors or season ticket holders have for attending lower level league games. I'd bet my house that there would only be a few of thousand fans if that (See Ivy league and DII schools) attending games AND a lot of donors and season ticket holders would go away. If you want empty stadiums try it. Especially If you think the Hogs should only be AA instead of AAA! What makes you think Arkansas would only be AA worthy. Also why the Cowboys. You do realize that the campus and a whole lot of of the state are actually closer to the KC Chiefs than the Cowboys. That academic problem IS the main issue though. Do you honestly think that schools would give athletic scholarships and not have some sort of academic requirements.

Why would colleges go bankrupt?  No one would require them to spend any more than they already do. 

Your chicken little scenarios are just guesses, and uninformed ones at that.

[Fatty McGee]

Personally, I think that this is a case of a minority of players (as a percentage of all college football players) starting something that could hurt the majority of college football players, many of who are probably very happy with having a scholarship, being able to play college football and get an education.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

This makes no sense.  Nothing whatsoever prevents a school from still offering scholarships to the vast majority of its players. 

But you're right, it will be interesting.  And it's time for a change.

[Fatty McGee]

Locusbug you like others ignore the different elephants in the room. It is not what a scholarship cost it is what all the scholarships together cost. Northwestern just like public institutions rely on government grants like all research schools do. Even if they are a private school they have to abide by Title 9 also if they want to receive their fair share. And then there are other government considerations too. Big brother is watching don't ever forget that. The money that the schools make is already being spent. The huge profits after expenses is fiction except for a case or two like, gag Texas.

Athletics isn't designed to "make" money for the schools.  Never has been.  When it does great, but it's not the point of having collegiate athletics.

[Wildhog]

just. let. them. go. pro.

pay them a cut of their jersey/autograph sales.

[Inhogswetrust]

As do you, if one reads most of your chicken little posts.

OK Fat man. Attacking me again I see. When I'm attacked I respond in kind. I'm tired of your antics. The media makes their livening off news, I don't. Before message boards nobody cared about what you or I said and they still don't, but we don't make money off what others think and say like the media does. I even tried to show where we could agree on some things but you won't have it. With you it is your way is always best and damn everyone else. If you want chicken little then go look in a mirror. Otherwise leave me alone. You have your opinion and I have mine. I want little change and you want a complete overhaul. You think the system is broken and should be replaced and I think it just needs minor repairs. Leave it at that or keep getting in return what you dish out. 

[Tier1hog]

We don't need a $6 million / year coaching staff.  If we take $1 million off per year and give it to the players, the demand for these coaching positions will remain the same.

[Inhogswetrust]

Why would colleges go bankrupt?  No one would require them to spend any more than they already do. 

Your chicken little scenarios are just guesses, and uninformed ones at that.

Your reading skills are laughable. WHERE did I say THE WHOLE COLLEGE would go bankrupt. I said the ATHLETIC departments would. The ONLY way they make up any shortfalls as it is now is through DONORS and good ticket sales. If you don't think that attendance and the money spent would be effected then you aren't thinking and don't know know squat.   

[Tier1hog]

Athletics isn't designed to "make" money for the schools.  Never has been.  When it does great, but it's not the point of having collegiate athletics.

College athletics have come a long way from Harvard and Yale students doing some boat races against each other for fun ~130 years ago.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

This makes no sense.  Nothing whatsoever prevents a school from still offering scholarships to the vast majority of its players. 

But you're right, it will be interesting.  And it's time for a change.

It might have made sense if you had read and quoted the entire post instead of selectively quoting that which you think makes your individual point.

[Inhogswetrust]

College athletics have come a long way from Harvard and Yale students doing some boat races against each other for fun ~130 years ago.

True. Yet some people want to blow it up. Amazing.

[hog911]

not to mention, who's to say the colleges dont say "fine you can get paid.  I pay you 25,000 a year, but you dont get a scholarship."  Now what?  You just screwed yourself because the cost of your education is going to be more then what they are willing to pay you.  I mean, if you think about how much they pay them now, in schooling, rent, food, clothes, medical, etc. for someone who sits on the bench and doesn't play a down.  You're not worth the money when it becomes a "buisness" meaning you will get MUCH less then what all of that is worth.  Just greedy to me....

+1

[Fatty McGee]

OK Fat man. Attacking me again I see. When I'm attacked I respond in kind. I'm tired of your antics. The media makes their livening off news, I don't. Before message boards nobody cared about what you or I said and they still don't, but we don't make money off what others think and say like the media does. I even tried to show where we could agree on some things but you won't have it. With you it is your way is always best and damn everyone else. If you want chicken little then go look in a mirror. Otherwise leave me alone. You have your opinion and I have mine. I want little change and you want a complete overhaul. You think the system is broken and should be replaced and I think it just needs minor repairs. Leave it at that or keep getting in return what you dish out. 

I'm not attacking you.  I'm just pointing out that your doomsday scenarios are just guesses. 

[Fatty McGee]

It might have made sense if you had read and quoted the entire post instead of selectively posting that which you think makes your individual point.

I did.  It still doesn't.  This is all happening, though, you're right.  But college football has been in major flux for the past 25 years, and only grows more popular.

[Fatty McGee]

College athletics have come a long way from Harvard and Yale students doing some boat races against each other for fun ~130 years ago.

And it's still not designed to make money.  It's marketing, and remains such.  It's just that a few select schools can make a little doing it. 

[Fatty McGee]

Your reading skills are laughable. WHERE did I say THE WHOLE COLLEGE would go bankrupt. I said the ATHLETIC departments would. The ONLY way they make up any shortfalls as it is now is through DONORS and good ticket sales. If you don't think that attendance and the money spent would be effected then you aren't thinking and don't know know squat.   

Athletic departments aren't separate entities as such, and thus would not go "bankrupt".  If that were the case, 60+% of the schools presently doing FBS football would already be bankrupt.  Athletics isn't designed to be profitable. This is not difficult math.  You keep saying the money will run out and everyone will go bankrupt if this happens, yet each year coaches' salaries get higher, schools who are encouraging coaches to break contracts and leave their current jobs and come to their school pay larger buyouts, TV contracts go for more, ADs get paid more, larger facilities get built.  Still the donors keep coming.  It would seem reality undermines your claims.

The money could also be made up through sponsorships, new sources of revenue from TV, etc.  Again, this is all just marketing, and right now live sports is the hottest property in television, and virtually the only thing that is must-see live. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I did.  It still doesn't.  This is all happening, though, you're right.  But college football has been in major flux for the past 25 years, and only grows more popular.

Well no, you didn't quote the entire post, but carry on, by all means.

[Fatty McGee]

Well no, you didn't quote the entire post, but carry on, by all means.

I didn't feel the rest of it required a response.

[bphi11ips]

Why do 110,000 fans regularly pack stadiums to see a sport played at a level far below the NFL?

If you answer this question you will know where this is headed as a practical matter, notwithstanding the strong probability that Peter Sung Ohr's decision that college football players are employees of the university will be reversed on appeal.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I didn't feel the rest of it required a response.

You wouldn't, though it was all relevant to the point. It didn't adjoin with your perspective, so naturally, leave it out.

[Kevin]

love the way fair treatment is thrown around.

so you think it is fair for a college team to have a qb making money from jersey sales, but the third string guard won't be able too.

plus, most of these kids get $5000 a year pell grant in addition to the scholarship. problem is when they get the $2500 check in late august, it is all spent by,  the next day, and they scream they have no money.

no, you had money, you just wasn't responsible with it.

and everyone's answer to this is give them more money.

how about teaching responsibility, after all they are at an educational institution

[Fatty McGee]

You wouldn't, though it was all relevant to the point. It didn't adjoin with your perspective, so naturally, leave it out.

No, I was just trying to be brief.  I can address it if you want.  It's just mostly a hypothetical which is pretty much a guess.  So you could be right, and you could be wrong.

I only addressed your statement about the majority being harmed because that makes no sense because it's not at all clear anyone will be harmed.  What you posted before was just your guess on how they might be (although it didn't even really make that case very well).

[Fatty McGee]

love the way fair treatment is thrown around.

so you think it is fair for a college team to have a qb making money from jersey sales, but the third string guard won't be able too.

plus, most of these kids get $5000 a year pell grant in addition to the scholarship. problem is when they get the $2500 check in late august, it is all spent by,  the next day, and they scream they have no money.

no, you had money, you just wasn't responsible with it.

and everyone's answer to this is give them more money.

how about teaching responsibility, after all they are at an educational institution

You ever heard the phrase, "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome"?  The third string guard has an equal opportunity to market his services.  Doesn't mean they're worth the same or that his outcome will be the same as the QB destined to be a 1st round pick. 

[Hogfaniam]

just. let. them. go. pro.

pay them a cut of their jersey/autograph sales.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Kevin]

You ever heard the phrase, "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome"?  The third string guard has an equal opportunity to market his services.  Doesn't mean they're worth the same or that his outcome will be the same as the QB destined to be a 1st round pick. 

college sports is not a free market. if players out of high school want to try and make money, go to canada.

or start a minor leagues, that they can go play in.

plus, the best lineman never make as much in the nfl, then qb's

[Fatty McGee]

college sports is not a free market. if players out of high school want to try and make money, go to canada.

or start a minor leagues, that they can go play in.

plus, the best lineman never make as much in the nfl, then qb's

It's not yet, but it will be.

[Inhogswetrust]

I'm not attacking you.  I'm just pointing out that your doomsday scenarios are just guesses. 

I never used the word doomsday. Even if it were doomsday as you think, then your way of thinking HOW things should be done is a better way is also a guess. I'll make a deal with you. Don't call my post chicken little and such and I won't do likewise to yours.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No, I was just trying to be brief.  I can address it if you want.  It's just mostly a hypothetical which is pretty much a guess.  So you could be right, and you could be wrong.

I only addressed your statement about the majority being harmed because that makes no sense because it's not at all clear anyone will be harmed.  What you posted before was just your guess on how they might be (although it didn't even really make that case very well).

Which is yet another, hypothetical, based on your opinion. All things being equal, mine is no less of a guess than yours.

[Fatty McGee]

Which is yet another, hypothetical, based on your opinion. All things being equal, mine is no less of a guess than yours.

I never said otherwise.  I just don't see why you assume the worst, when every indication from the past shows that this only gets more popular.  The worst thing (my guess) is that for many schools the educational mission might become more central again, while for some the superconferences that have always been coming will continue to focus on being NFL minor leagues, just with less restriction on the talent. 

Is that a change?  Sure.  Is it bad?  Maybe, maybe not, probably depends on perspective.  30 years ago if you'd have told me that OU-Nebraska wouldn't play every year, that Kansas and Mizzou wouldn't play every year in basketball, that Arkansas wouldn't play Texas every year, that the Pac 12 would have 14 schools and the SWC and Big 8 would be gone and replaced by a Big 12 with 10 schools, I would have said that sounds terrible.  But here we are and the game is more popular than ever. 

[Fatty McGee]

I never used the word doomsday. Even if it were doomsday as you think, then your way of thinking HOW things should be done is a better way is also a guess. I'll make a deal with you. Don't call my post chicken little and such and I won't do likewise to yours.

Your posts are chicken little posts.  My posts are awesome, so I don't mind if you're wrong on mine.

[Hoggish1]

Some players will get a million bucks to play college football .... no doubt in my mind.

There will be a starting value for each position.

Either get on the bus or get off. Players will make more than coaches and I can't disagree with that.

When I played, we got $15 per month called laundry $.  I believe, today, that "laundry money" has been hugely jacked to $25 per month.

I think you and the posters before you who buy this tax stuff from ESPiN, that student athletes, if unionized, would have huge tax bills, are falling for the hype.

I think what happens is athletes get walking around $ of say $500 - $750 a month.  That in no way will break the bank for schools.  It will probably apply just to major college programs.

It will not be open ended pay, meaning, of example, that SEC schools can pay more than PAC-12, etc.

Players who meet a certain income threshold for the year will pay tax on earnings, but it will be minor, if any burden on their pocket book.

[Inhogswetrust]

Athletic departments aren't separate entities as such, and thus would not go "bankrupt".  If that were the case, 60+% of the schools presently doing FBS football would already be bankrupt.  Athletics isn't designed to be profitable. This is not difficult math.  You keep saying the money will run out and everyone will go bankrupt if this happens, yet each year coaches' salaries get higher, schools who are encouraging coaches to break contracts and leave their current jobs and come to their school pay larger buyouts, TV contracts go for more, ADs get paid more, larger facilities get built.  Still the donors keep coming.  It would seem reality undermines your claims.

The money could also be made up through sponsorships, new sources of revenue from TV, etc.  Again, this is all just marketing, and right now live sports is the hottest property in television, and virtually the only thing that is must-see live. 

I guess you didn't know schools subsidize athletic departments so they don't go bankrupt.Do you honestly not think schools wouldn't consider not doing that if their cost to subsidize went up to much with unions and pay for play were done. Athletic departments do their own P & L statements so what they take in and spend is accounted for separate from the academic and administrative side of colleges. They are subsidizes by the schools (State governments to some degree), Student athletic fees, donors and media contracts. Do you honestly believe that the people running the colleges would continue to subsidize the athletic departments that are run somewhat independently now the same if you got your way. I don't believe so. It's the DONORS AND ticket buyers that pay for the majority of facilities and salaries now. You might want to look up who actually pays for most of the coaches salaries and the facilities. It's the donors. The TV money helps but it isn't the only source of revenue. People keep talking about Billions to the schools yet those contracts are spread out over years and many schools to where by the time it gets to the schools it isn't that much to the totality of the budget on a yearly basis. Do you think that without those donors and large number of ticket buyers that the schools would build those facilities? Nope. Did the UA put in millions to build BWA like Bud did? Nope. How about the upgrades to RRS. Nope. Would they have done it without them or someone like them doing it. Nope. I'd bet that those schools that have an athletic fees for students would be pressured to drop those fees if it was unionized or pay for play. AD's ALWAYS have to raise money outside the confines of the college to balance the budgets even with the revenue that media and ticket sales bring in to the big sports.

[Kevin]

history, if humans & money are involved, then you can expect the worst.

figures it would take a bunch of liberals to open another pandora's box

don't be fooled it is not  about the college athlete, it is about union dues, and votes. the athlete will again be screwed, just by different people