I'd say the ones getting the most out of it are not the universities but rather the NFL and NBA. They get great developmental leagues without any concern over liability or responsibility for them. And I don't think it's economically feasible to pay the athletes. It's funny, on this board there's a thread about how insane college tuition has gotten and yet when people start talking about the value of a scholarship for athletes it seems that cost gets minimized in the discussion. As it is, outside of football and hoops, most college sports lose money and they rely heavily on revenue from those two to help support them. If you pay the football players guess what - you're going to have to pay all of your athletes, in every sport. Maybe I'm way off on this but I seriously doubt a lot of schools could handle this. You'd see tuition go way up again and/or a bunch of sports getting the axe - neither of which is a desirable outcome IMO.
First half of this is right IMO. free developmental leagues are great for NCAA and great for NFL, NBA etc.
But the idea that a whole slew of sports would get the axe is wrong. Colleges have sponsored sports forever, before TV revenue, as they are a marketing/cultural tool for the universities.
Also, paying players does not mean millions of dollars. Likely, it will depend on athletic revenue a school produces. So kennesaw state bball players arent going to be buying Escalades.
Finally, if it comes to pass, you may see more students who noe choose education/college experience/exposure over leagues like DLeague/MLB minors choosr the professional option.
If OBannon wins likely there will be structural changes. But as is always the case, chicken little types are overstating the demise of collegiate athletics.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2