• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Texas to start paying its athletes???

BadlandsGrizFan

Well-known member
Can they do this? This is a game changer and will kill the smaller programs who struggle to balance their books....college athletics is going down a dark dark path boys.....


http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Steve Patterson was asked a hypothetical question of what they would do IF the NCAA loses these lawsuits and schools are required to pay players. They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.
 
WaGriz4life said:
They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.

Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
WaGriz4life said:
They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.

Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.

Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
CDAGRIZ said:
WaGriz4life said:
They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.

Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.

Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.

I'd like to see the power conferences branch off, pay their players, have unlimited scholarships, STILL get the bowl sponsorship money, abolish all recruiting rules, and really see who is best without stupid regulatory restrictions. You have more money? Cool. You can choose to spend it if you want to buy better players and a better program. Real life.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
CDAGRIZ said:
WaGriz4life said:
They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.

Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.

Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.

I'd like to see the power conferences branch off, pay their players, have unlimited scholarships, STILL get the bowl sponsorship money, abolish all recruiting rules, and really see who is best without stupid regulatory restrictions. You have more money? Cool. You can choose to spend it if you want to buy better players and a better program. Real life.
Yep. And they wont even be enrolled in class.
 
Yukon said:
CDAGRIZ said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.

Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.

I'd like to see the power conferences branch off, pay their players, have unlimited scholarships, STILL get the bowl sponsorship money, abolish all recruiting rules, and really see who is best without stupid regulatory restrictions. You have more money? Cool. You can choose to spend it if you want to buy better players and a better program. Real life.
Yep. And they wont even be enrolled in class.

Yes. If that is what the University wants to show the world as its student athletes, then that's what it should be able to do.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Yukon said:
CDAGRIZ said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.

I'd like to see the power conferences branch off, pay their players, have unlimited scholarships, STILL get the bowl sponsorship money, abolish all recruiting rules, and really see who is best without stupid regulatory restrictions. You have more money? Cool. You can choose to spend it if you want to buy better players and a better program. Real life.
Yep. And they wont even be enrolled in class.

Yes. If that is what the University wants to show the world as its student athletes, then that's what it should be able to do.
At least it would be honest and above board which is better than the farce that is unfolding at North Carolina:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/unc-academic-and-athletic-officials-steered-student-athletes-to-bogus-classes-181214478.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Can they do this? This is a game changer and will kill the smaller programs who struggle to balance their books....college athletics is going down a dark dark path boys.....


http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why/how will it kill smaller programs?
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Yukon said:
CDAGRIZ said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.
I'd like to see the power conferences branch off, pay their players, have unlimited scholarships, STILL get the bowl sponsorship money, abolish all recruiting rules, and really see who is best without stupid regulatory restrictions. You have more money? Cool. You can choose to spend it if you want to buy better players and a better program. Real life.
Yep. And they wont even be enrolled in class.
Yes. If that is what the University wants to show the world as its student athletes, then that's what it should be able to do.
While I do not necessarily disagree, or agree ... such decisions are complicated by the fact that almost all of the "big time" program are, in fact, state-supported institutions. Along these lines, they have not handled two consequences particularly well.

One is obviously the huge advantage all that money gives for athletic recruitment -- in terms of facilities, promises of TV time to enhance future (NFL) careers, etc.

But even aside from athletics, publicly-funded schools have had to grapple with how to handle "outside" money -- that is, grants (foundation or Federal), joint ventures with industry, and revenue streams based on patents and licenses. Some science and engineering departments have developed substantial income from those sources. They often work out some sort of salary-enhancement protocol for professors who bring in large amounts of money ... for themselves and to support more graduate (sometimes undergraduate) research. To say that the "non-income" disciplines get pissed about the $$ support/income disparity is a gross under-statement. (Does this sound familiar?) In the more extreme cases, schools have had to split off the "income producing" faculty into some sort of "research/industrial" park. They retain professorships and teach classes, but their true affiliation is with the "corporation" (different structures exist) at the research park.

So: Will big-time football programs finally admit that they are just "farm teams" for the NFL ...and split themselves off into income-producing entities that just happen to provide some students with athletic scholarship. I have no idea ... but that conclusion does not seem, sadly, out of the question.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
CDAGRIZ said:
WaGriz4life said:
They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.

Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.

Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.

Badlands, what don't you like about paying student-athletes?
 
IdaGriz01 said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Yukon said:
CDAGRIZ said:
I'd like to see the power conferences branch off, pay their players, have unlimited scholarships, STILL get the bowl sponsorship money, abolish all recruiting rules, and really see who is best without stupid regulatory restrictions. You have more money? Cool. You can choose to spend it if you want to buy better players and a better program. Real life.
Yep. And they wont even be enrolled in class.
Yes. If that is what the University wants to show the world as its student athletes, then that's what it should be able to do.
While I do not necessarily disagree, or agree ... such decisions are complicated by the fact that almost all of the "big time" program are, in fact, state-supported institutions. Along these lines, they have not handled two consequences particularly well.

One is obviously the huge advantage all that money gives for athletic recruitment -- in terms of facilities, promises of TV time to enhance future (NFL) careers, etc.

But even aside from athletics, publicly-funded schools have had to grapple with how to handle "outside" money -- that is, grants (foundation or Federal), joint ventures with industry, and revenue streams based on patents and licenses. Some science and engineering departments have developed substantial income from those sources. They often work out some sort of salary-enhancement protocol for professors who bring in large amounts of money ... for themselves and to support more graduate (sometimes undergraduate) research. To say that the "non-income" disciplines get pissed about the $$ support/income disparity is a gross under-statement. (Does this sound familiar?) In the more extreme cases, schools have had to split off the "income producing" faculty into some sort of "research/industrial" park. They retain professorships and teach classes, but their true affiliation is with the "corporation" (different structures exist) at the research park.

So: Will big-time football programs finally admit that they are just "farm teams" for the NFL ...and split themselves off into income-producing entities that just happen to provide some students with athletic scholarship. I have no idea ... but that conclusion does not seem, sadly, out of the question.


Really cool info, man. Thanks for explaining that about the profs. It kind of reminds me of physicians at academic hospitals versus professors in other departments at the same university.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
IdaGriz01 said:
... They often work out some sort of salary-enhancement protocol for professors who bring in large amounts of money ... for themselves and to support more graduate (sometimes undergraduate) research. To say that the "non-income" disciplines get pissed about the $$ support/income disparity is a gross under-statement. (Does this sound familiar?) In the more extreme cases, schools have had to split off the "income producing" faculty into some sort of "research/industrial" park. They retain professorships and teach classes, but their true affiliation is with the "corporation" (different structures exist) at the research park.

So: Will big-time football programs finally admit that they are just "farm teams" for the NFL ...and split themselves off into income-producing entities that just happen to provide some students with athletic scholarship. I have no idea ... but that conclusion does not seem, sadly, out of the question.
Really cool info, man. Thanks for explaining that about the profs. It kind of reminds me of physicians at academic hospitals versus professors in other departments at the same university.
Exactamundo! :thumb:

Virtually the same problem. ;)
 
qwerty15ster said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
CDAGRIZ said:
WaGriz4life said:
They are not (cannot) proactively doing this.

Technically, they can pay them whatever they want if they don't care about being a NCAA member.

Ya but it seams as though many athletic directors think this is the route the NCAA is going towards...I don't like it.

Badlands, what don't you like about paying student-athletes?

I think athletes payment is them graduating from college without student debt....by paying them the universities might as well just be club teams...it takes away from the tradition and honor in college sports in my opinion...but sadly I don't think that's the route it is heading....I think the university should be able to make as much money as they can off the athletes..thats what the athlete is signing up for when he accepts his scholarship...he knows people are going to pay money to come watch a football game...and he may be on a poster..or tv...WHOCARES? They are simply getting a good start at life (no debt) and possibly an opportunity for the pros....to me that worth the shot and hard work...if they don't like it well they can always go work in the oil fields or for McDonalds right out of high school and they'll pay you....if you want free education and the chance to make it to the pros...play college sports....I know others feel differently but that's just my opinion.
 
PlayerRep said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Can they do this? This is a game changer and will kill the smaller programs who struggle to balance their books....college athletics is going down a dark dark path boys.....


http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why/how will it kill smaller programs?

I just feel like a Texas will have a huge advantage over say a Rice or Boise State once money becomes involved...surprisingly I don't think there are a ton of college football programs that could sustain paying their athletes for a long period of time without it affecting their athletic budgets....do you see this possibly pushing the 2nd tier programs like the Fresno, Boise State, Utah State San Diego States...back down into an FCS type league?
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Can they do this? This is a game changer and will kill the smaller programs who struggle to balance their books....college athletics is going down a dark dark path boys.....


http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why/how will it kill smaller programs?

I just feel like a Texas will have a huge advantage over say a Rice or Boise State once money becomes involved...surprisingly I don't think there are a ton of college football programs that could sustain paying their athletes for a long period of time without it affecting their athletic budgets....do you see this possibly pushing the 2nd tier programs like the Fresno, Boise State, Utah State San Diego States...back down into an FCS type league?

I get your point, but doesn't Texas already have an advantage over Rice and Boise State? How will that advantage grow? Presumably, not too many Texas caliber recruits are also considering Boise State.

Let's say Alabama and Texas pay the most, and it continues down the line to Idaho that pays the least. I don't really see how recruiting leverage would change, or how the little guys would be further disadvantaged.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Can they do this? This is a game changer and will kill the smaller programs who struggle to balance their books....college athletics is going down a dark dark path boys.....


http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why/how will it kill smaller programs?

I just feel like a Texas will have a huge advantage over say a Rice or Boise State once money becomes involved...surprisingly I don't think there are a ton of college football programs that could sustain paying their athletes for a long period of time without it affecting their athletic budgets....do you see this possibly pushing the 2nd tier programs like the Fresno, Boise State, Utah State San Diego States...back down into an FCS type league?

I get your point, but doesn't Texas already have an advantage over Rice and Boise State? How will that advantage grow? Presumably, not too many Texas caliber recruits are also considering Boise State.

Let's say Alabama and Texas pay the most, and it continues down the line to Idaho that pays the least. I don't really see how recruiting leverage would change, or how the little guys would be further disadvantaged.

I guess I'm just assuming there is going to be a certain cut off for a caliber of players that make their minds up that they will not play for a school that doesn't pay them..presumably the very best in the country..that top teir...so that being said..I think a ton of these guys that maybe slip through the cracks or are under valued out of high school that many teams like say Louisville, and Wyomings and Rutgers of the worlds get...maybe now some of these players don't even consider these schools? Maybe it will now become worth it to them to just sit on a team and not play till their senior year for a Texas or Alabama? IDk its opening up a whole new can of worms.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
CDAGRIZ said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
Why/how will it kill smaller programs?

I just feel like a Texas will have a huge advantage over say a Rice or Boise State once money becomes involved...surprisingly I don't think there are a ton of college football programs that could sustain paying their athletes for a long period of time without it affecting their athletic budgets....do you see this possibly pushing the 2nd tier programs like the Fresno, Boise State, Utah State San Diego States...back down into an FCS type league?

I get your point, but doesn't Texas already have an advantage over Rice and Boise State? How will that advantage grow? Presumably, not too many Texas caliber recruits are also considering Boise State.

Let's say Alabama and Texas pay the most, and it continues down the line to Idaho that pays the least. I don't really see how recruiting leverage would change, or how the little guys would be further disadvantaged.

I guess I'm just assuming there is going to be a certain cut off for a caliber of players that make their minds up that they will not play for a school that doesn't pay them..presumably the very best in the country..that top teir...so that being said..I think a ton of these guys that maybe slip through the cracks or are under valued out of high school that many teams like say Louisville, and Wyomings and Rutgers of the worlds get...maybe now some of these players don't even consider these schools? Maybe it will now become worth it to them to just sit on a team and not play till their senior year for a Texas or Alabama? IDk its opening up a whole new can of worms.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. How many kids will drop down to FCS to get playing time, when they are getting paid? About none.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Can they do this? This is a game changer and will kill the smaller programs who struggle to balance their books....college athletics is going down a dark dark path boys.....


http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why/how will it kill smaller programs?

I just feel like a Texas will have a huge advantage over say a Rice or Boise State once money becomes involved...surprisingly I don't think there are a ton of college football programs that could sustain paying their athletes for a long period of time without it affecting their athletic budgets....do you see this possibly pushing the 2nd tier programs like the Fresno, Boise State, Utah State San Diego States...back down into an FCS type league?

Thx. I would think that Texas already has a huge advantage over Rice and Boise St, so am not sure how many more top/good recruits would go to Texas over Rice and Boise, in your example. Obviously, some good recruits must choice Rice/Boise over Texas (not sure how many), but I'm not so sure that $10,000 more per year at Texas (and Rice/Boise) are going to pay a goodly amount too, is going to override the other reasons that a recruit is thinking of choosing Rice/Boise over Texas.

Yes, this is going to have a significant financial impact over lesser programs who try to keep up with the big boys. I don't see many of the lesser programs ever looking to move down. Maybe the Idaho's of the world, but not many others.
 
Back
Top