Texas to start paying its athletes???

[PlayerRep]

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.

I think many will continue to drop down to get playing time.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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.

That assumes that the guys who slip through the cracks have the option of choosing Texas or Alabama. Since they are undervalued coming out of HS, I don't think it's a safe assumption that they have the choice to ride the pine at Texas.

If you accept the basic premise that the top programs will pay the most, and the shitty programs will pay the least, then I don't think recruiting would play out that much differently than it does now.

Now, if you have two teams of the same caliber, one pays and one doesn't, then I think it would be more in line with what you are saying. But would that ever happen? It would be an arms race like it is now with facilities, etc. I don't think you would ever see Texas paying players without Texas A&M, LSU, Florida, etc. following suit.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Another thing I hadn't thought of is what if a rich school like Rice or SMU came out right now and decided to pay its players. That could provide them access to recruits they would not have previously had, and theoretically balance power rather than exacerbate the current disparity between power/non-power conferences. Sure, Texas could come along and pay more, but that's their choice. And that is how it should be.

 

[GoldStandardGriz]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11775571/pac-12-passes-athlete-reforms-including-guaranteed-4-year-scholarshipsuh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; oh

 

[PlayerRep]

Another thing I hadn't thought of is what if a rich school like Rice or SMU came out right now and decided to pay its players. That could provide them access to recruits they would not have previously had, and theoretically balance power rather than exacerbate the current disparity between power/non-power conferences. Sure, Texas could come along and pay more, but that's their choice. And that is how it should be.

Isn't the ncaa, which now seems to be controlled by all of these "big" schools, going to set limits on what can be paid?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Another thing I hadn't thought of is what if a rich school like Rice or SMU came out right now and decided to pay its players. That could provide them access to recruits they would not have previously had, and theoretically balance power rather than exacerbate the current disparity between power/non-power conferences. Sure, Texas could come along and pay more, but that's their choice. And that is how it should be.

Isn't the ncaa, which now seems to be controlled by all of these "big" schools, going to set limits on what can be paid?

Absolutely, to further regulate what has outgrown it and stay relevant. But only if the schools are a part of the NCAA.