Originally Posted by improbus
What is Braxton Miller currently getting for playing in front of 100,000 people? First, the "scholarship" is a negligible cost for the school. The "benefits" than the players get are simply the cost of doing business and keeping the cartel running. You can't count that as part of their compensation. It would be like claiming that the Mail Truck and uniform are part of the mail man's compensation. So, he isn't exactly getting a lot for all of that exposure right now.
Also, don't credit the university for giving the players exposure. The professional leagues would find a way to find the talent. The sports that don't filter through the college system have no problem identifying talent.
Finally, I don't understand the argument that paying the players will create some sort of competitive imbalance. The top ten grossing programs are perennial top 10 football programs already.
I agree with you completely.
Thing is, the schools are still getting their tuition for scholarships. People talk about a "free" education, but it's not free. The athletic departments are still paying the school for the cost of tuition for each scholarship. Granted, there are some athletic departments that are not entirely self-sufficient, as some either receive money from the general funds or state sponsorship. Regardless, in most cases, the scholarships are being paid for by a third party.
I actually don't think this would be a big deal. The NCAA could create a clearinghouse where athletes can register their earnings or share of marketing/advertising rights. At the end of expiration of their eligibility or a designated period thereof, they could receie a prorated share of all monies earned during their time on campus. This would allow the NCAA and member institutions to somewhat regulate where the money is coming from; give the athletes their fair share of the pie; but at the same time maintain the focus on being a "student-athlete" while on campus.