Around the Big Ten

[hack]

Best for fans but whether its best for the value of the league, tough to say. Anyway, that's an entirely different discussion.

My only point was CFB isn't anywhere close to fair right now. Adding permissible payments into the equation won't really change the haves and have-nots, though it may exacerbate the gulf.

On paper they are one and the same -- fans = money. In CFB however, where many fans have a lot more of a close bond with the team and where one game a year is the line between success and failure in many cases, the link between credibility and sustainability is weaker. I just don't know to what extent.

[iam416]

Yeah, so maybe fans don't care about competition parity. There are plenty of leagues that don't extremely well without the NFL's hard cap. I think, e.g., the EPL is on par with the NFL in terms of value, and it's one of the most top-heavy leagues in the world. I guess the counterpoint is that it'd be worth even more if it were balanced, but that's next to impossible to show.

So, I think there's plenty of reasons why fans watch a given league or sport, and parity is but one of them. Obviously, there needs to be SOME parity, but whether it the difference between modest parity and perfect parity is of any significance, I'm not sure.

[Hannibal]

Letting players get paid would level the playing field, not make it worse, because a lot of the "haves" today got there by not making a good faith effort to follow the rules. A competitive advantage formed as the result of great facilities and a 100 years of tradition is perfectly fine by me. A competitive advantage formed becase you have a different attitude about cheating is not. That's why the lack of parity in college football, to me, represents a greater threat than what is in any professional sport. To make an analogy, imagine if half the teams in the NFL had an against-the-rules black market payroll. I think that the league would suffer with that.

BTW, if I were an Auburn or an Alabama fan, I'd be terrified of any rule that eliminates amateurism. If people can legitimately bid on Cam Newton, he probably doens't end up at Auburn.

[THE_WIZARD_]

How do you regulate the payments? There would still be cheating no matter what.

[entropy]

hanny... maybe.. but then again, I bet bama has more fans than Michigan who would use their kids college funds to by a QB.

[entropy]

http://menofthescarletandgray.com/2012/07/25/penn-state-fans-say-the-darndest-things/

[Hannibal]

hanny... maybe.. but then again, I bet bama has more fans than Michigan who would use their kids college funds to by a QB.

I don't think so. The long term top programs all have ridiculous donors. The difference is, our wealthy folks only have the option of contributing to a massive pool without any accountability or direct connection to victories.

IMHO the Big Ten would benefit tremendously, because of all of the massive alumni bases, many of whom enjoy lots of financial success. All of the massive donations made for seat licenses and new weight rooms would go to 5* recruits instead. In terms of money for recruits, Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State could easily compete with anyone in the country.

[Hannibal]

How do you regulate the payments?

You don't. You just "decriminalize" them. Gets you around Title IX issues too.

[THE_WIZARD_]

So the school could pay whatever they deem necessary? So bidding wars over players will ensue...and Idaho has a chance to outbid Alabama?

Utterly ridiculous.

[Hannibal]

So the school could pay whatever they deem necessary? .

Not the school. The boosters.

nd Idaho has a chance to outbid Alabama?

No, but Notre Dame and Michigan do.

[entropy]

I don't think nebraska would... to be honest. Mich, OSU, PSU.. much much larger schools. they could pay what bama and flordia pay

[THE_WIZARD_]

If it comes to that...then the Idaho's will be at a further disadvantage. And a 64 team (at the most) Division 1 or FBS would make more sense. The Top 5 conferences and Notre Dame, BYU. The rest need to drop to FCS.

[Optimus Prime]

It starts first with the NFL actually paying for the "farm system" that they have freely exploited over the last 50 years.

A salary or stipend that is directly tied to REAL costs of attending University is next, but I do have my doubts and may simply start a bidding war where proven college stars may receive near NFL-type salaries under the table. Nothing new for Ohio St., USC, Auburn, Alabama and alike mind you.


It's back to 120 Div. 1 -A schools, punt 70 of them and you suddenly have a workable number.

[Hannibal]

If it comes to that...then the Idaho's will be at a further disadvantage. And a 64 team (at the most) Division 1 or FBS would make more sense. The Top 5 conferences and Notre Dame, BYU. The rest need to drop to FCS.

I guess what matters is whether you value parity at the very top (i.e. national championship level) or in the middle (i.e. MAC teams being able to upset BCS teams). You are correct that paying players (either officially or unofficially) makes the gap between the majors and the mid-majors better. I try to make the argument that right now, the elite national scene is becoming a joke. I'm confident that more than half the teams who have participated in the BCS championship game over the past decade have gained a significant competitive advantage because of cheating cultures and different attitudes towards enforcing the rules. I'm getting sick of it. IMHO college football is now a competition amongst a tiny set of elites for that very reason.

[Tony G]

I think if I was PSU, I would have countered with the death penalty for one year.

According to Emmert, the discussion was the Death Penalty PLUS other sanctions