Looks like the California schools and the NCAA are headed for a showdown regarding paying kids. Would mean those schools wouldn’t be able to compete for a national championship. Interesting that the NCAA has the power to keep a whole state of schools form competing for the natty because of players getting $$$ but gave up so much power to the autonomous conferences for network $$$. I know that was a court decision in the 80s, if this goes to court, could have the same effect?
I think the consensus on r/CFB is kids would rather get paid than have the opportunity to play for a national championship that a majority of schools won’t come close to sniffing and even less of these kids will be getting drafted to the NFL.
Whether the NCAA actually blocks the California schools from competing for the natty, the issue of paying college players is getting a push forward, not waiting for the NCAA.
I think the bigger issue is that kids may be getting paid to play. How does that affect UH?
I assume that there will be some structure, but if it is wide open, would that then give our boosters carte blanche to pay players? We would be competing against other deep pockets. Further separation of haves/have nots? But we’d have more control over our situation than depending on the conference. It can go many ways
The PAC has a huge issue that is not widely reported. The sports programs operating costs are going through the “roof” This is not sustainable. The PAC has no choice but to find “added” revenues quickly. This is why we found that they are looking for so called “investors” This is where we might have a chance to “pay” our way in. I wholeheartedly hope that we are pursuing this possibility full speed.
College Football is already ruined. It has nothing to do with education. This has been this way for many years now. The ncaa, cfp and the cartel ruined college football. The PAC is only trying to find more revenues. Money talks everything else is meaningless.
Kind of hard to argue against kids getting paid when colleges are paying coaches outlandish amounts of money, schools are making outlandish amounts of money and building water slides in their multi-million dollar facility, and even administrators are making tons of money. Everybody but the players are profiting on it.
If the NCAA wants to keep it the way it used to be, they’re going to have to reign in some of these things. Otherwise, college football is heading towards being a semi-pro league.
Exactly. The ncaa finds itself in the same position that the ioc was before Olympic athletes were getting paid. This has always been an economical/business issue. It is “romantic” to suggest that this should be about education. It is not. Let’s not be hypocritical about it. For far too long we have been forced fed this notion of athletes getting an education. Sure they are but who is profiting with this current system? How many times have you heard of a player losing their scholarship because they were injured? Is that ethically right? Furthermore on what right and what basis does the cfp exist? For the billionth time you either play DIV I FBS or not? On what basis does the cfp have for excluding an NIU, Kent State or U of H for winning the so called National Championship? College Football became a business enterprise long ago. Nobody forces an athlete to play but the cfp forces an exclusion because they are not challenged. It is not only highly immoral but he should be rejected by all.
The cfp created this not the players.
Patrick, each and every year that I was on the Athletic Advisory Board (87-94), the proposal came up to provide athletes with a stipend.
Every year, our Board (led by Rudy Davalos) cast our vote (UH) with the NCAA to affirmatively approve a stipend. Every year, the vote failed because of the Ivy League, and other smaller schools within the NCAA.
UH was behind the best interests of the athletes then, and I suspect the sentiment remains the same. I would guess that Pez, being a former UH athlete, would go along with some reasonable path of compensation for athletes…
I haven’t heard of any players losing their scholarships due to injury. From what I understand, they are transferred to a medical scholarship so they don’t count against the limits.
I’m cool with a stipend, which I think is different than compensation. The ROTC scholarship I was offered in 1977 paid all school costs and $100 a month stipend. I think a small stipend, say $200 - $300 a month would be fine. Pizza money anyway.
Technically, this isn’t about paying the players directly, but allowing them to profit on their name and likeness. This would actually allow EA to come in and pay the players for an NCAA Football video game as well as remove the making money off autographs problem.
Issue, however, is that boosters could then start paying players to star in commercials or other types of advertising. This would basically make giving money to players “legal” instead of the under the table stuff like it is now.
I don’t really see the problem with it as players should be able to make money on their name or image. I kind of like the idea that was floated before about the money getting put in a 401K or investment account that couldn’t be accessed until after the finished playing, but I’m not sure that would fly legally. But, the thing is, players are getting paid at a lot of schools. We know it’s rampant in the SEC and they have ways to avoid making it public (the latest is that boosters pay the player’s church and that money is then given to the player through the church…NCAA doesn’t have access to the churches). This way, it’s all out in the open and boosters can spend whatever they want.
