Edsall Says Pay CFB Players

[kibblesnbits]

There’s the hot take I knew was coming.

Who forced these kids to go to a college they can’t afford?

Nobody.

And you’re an asshat if you think none of the scholarship athletes care about their m education.

Using that logic, nobody forced an athlete to accept a Division-I athletic scholarship either. If it doesn't provide enough, they could stay home and go to community college, get a job, or pay to go to UConn so they will have more time to study, etc. It's not unreasonable to recognize that if one side is stretching to make it happen (the athletes), there are others making different sacrifices to be at this state's flagship university.

Let's think about this. 85 football scholarship plus 13 basketball = 98. Of course, you'll also have to pay 98 members of various women's teams to stay in Title IX compliance. But if those 98 include women's hockey or soccer you will have to fund the corresponding men's team or make it clear those are undervalued sports and forget about getting competitive recruits. So add 18 for hockey and (??what is the soccer scholarship limit, let's say 18 as well) means we are up to 134 men and 134 women. There might be more such as softball/baseball equivalence, but let's just stop here (or we keep baseball and drop men's hockey, thereby saving on the new rink). 268 times how much money. $20 grand each perhaps. That's $5M+.

Where does it come from? First, all other sports will be cancelled. Track, swimming, crew, golf, tennis, etc. - gone. Forget about adding lacrosse on the men's side. The athletic department will basically be football, basketball, plus probably one or two of soccer/baseball/hockey for men and enough women's sports to reach the same number of scholarships (soccer, volleyball, basketball, hockey, softball, lacrosse and some filler sports). It's not so bad for women but the massive number of football scholarships means the men's side will be gutted.

 

[HuskyDogArt]

Sorry, Randy. Paying athletes while they are (supposed to be) getting an education? That will be a death knell for 99% of college sports - including UConn.

They are getting paid, an education is expensive. If 99% of them don't use the education they are getting, it is not my problem.

 

[huskymedic]

NYP: Why the simple solution isn’t the answer for deeply flawed NCAA

 

[BlueMAB]

Using that logic, nobody forced an athlete to accept a Division-I athletic scholarship either. If it doesn't provide enough, they could stay home and go to community college, get a job, or pay to go to UConn so they will have more time to study, etc. It's not unreasonable to recognize that if one side is stretching to make it happen (the athletes), there are others making different sacrifices to be at this state's flagship university.

Let's think about this. 85 football scholarship plus 13 basketball = 98. Of course, you'll also have to pay 98 members of various women's teams to stay in Title IX compliance. But if those 98 include women's hockey or soccer you will have to fund the corresponding men's team or make it clear those are undervalued sports and forget about getting competitive recruits. So add 18 for hockey and (??what is the soccer scholarship limit, let's say 18 as well) means we are up to 134 men and 134 women. There might be more such as softball/baseball equivalence, but let's just stop here (or we keep baseball and drop men's hockey, thereby saving on the new rink). 268 times how much money. $20 grand each perhaps. That's $5M+.

Where does it come from? First, all other sports will be cancelled. Track, swimming, crew, golf, tennis, etc. - gone. Forget about adding lacrosse on the men's side. The athletic department will basically be football, basketball, plus probably one or two of soccer/baseball/hockey for men and enough women's sports to reach the same number of scholarships (soccer, volleyball, basketball, hockey, softball, lacrosse and some filler sports). It's not so bad for women but the massive number of football scholarships means the men's side will be gutted.

The same logic doesn’t apply. They can’t go to the NBA or NFL straight from high school. And “normal” students don’t generate any income for the school unlike men’s basketball and football players. That could change for the NBA but it won’t for the NFL. If the nba allows kids to be drafted from HS you might have a point but even then the kids should still be allowed deals outside the school so they can help support their families.

How do they get paid? Easy. Take it from the $800 million the ncaa gets a year. Let them get proceeds from jersey sales. If a schools football team sells $1 million worth of jerseys, split that up between the players. Same with basketball, which includes women.

Let them get endorsements or work other jobs. Let them get paid appearances. If the school isn’t the one paying, they don’t have to worry about title IX.

If an agent wants to pay a kid $50k to signs s contract to represent him as a pro, let him. Who cares? They are finding way to funnel money to these guys anyway. They are only amateurs in the eyes of the people who are completely naive about college sports.

And title IX will have to come to grips with the fact that women’s sports don’t generate profit. As long as women still get the opportunity to play, there is nothing that is unfair. If a school like UConn’s women basketball generates profit, let them pay the players. But there’s nothing sexist or unfair about a kid who plays on a football team that generates millions in profit for a school, getting $5-$10k a year when his team helps to fund the scholarships for the women’s swimming team that creates no revenue, while those women still get scholarships.

And where is the logic behind takin away summer jobs. Let the kids get paid to coach at summer camps. Who is harmed by that? Why would that cause title IX issues? It wouldn’t.

 

[shakes65]

Randy made the Daily News today—-Page 35. Story by Evan Grossman. Just below story where O’Quinlan denies he took cash in college.

 

[kibblesnbits]

The same logic doesn’t apply. They can’t go to the NBA or NFL straight from high school. And “normal” students don’t generate any income for the school unlike men’s basketball and football players. That could change for the NBA but it won’t for the NFL. If the nba allows kids to be drafted from HS you might have a point but even then the kids should still be allowed deals outside the school so they can help support their families.

How do they get paid? Easy. Take it from the $800 million the ncaa gets a year. Let them get proceeds from jersey sales. If a schools football team sells $1 million worth of jerseys, split that up between the players. Same with basketball, which includes women.

Let them get endorsements or work other jobs. Let them get paid appearances. If the school isn’t the one paying, they don’t have to worry about title IX.

If an agent wants to pay a kid $50k to signs s contract to represent him as a pro, let him. Who cares? They are finding way to funnel money to these guys anyway. They are only amateurs in the eyes of the people who are completely naive about college sports.

And title IX will have to come to grips with the fact that women’s sports don’t generate profit. As long as women still get the opportunity to play, there is nothing that is unfair. If a school like UConn’s women basketball generates profit, let them pay the players. But there’s nothing sexist or unfair about a kid who plays on a football team that generates millions in profit for a school, getting $5-$10k a year when his team helps to fund the scholarships for the women’s swimming team that creates no revenue, while those women still get scholarships.

And where is the logic behind takin away summer jobs. Let the kids get paid to coach at summer camps. Who is harmed by that? Why would that cause title IX issues? It wouldn’t.

UConn students (the ones you make fun of if they stretch to afford to go to Storrs) are already subsidizing athletics. Football sure as hell isn’t making a profit. I love sports, but the Huskies are a money drain. Why should the students subsidize them more?

As for the NCAA, I hate them, but you seem to think they are sitting on an annual $800M profit. That’s revenue. Most of their money is distributed back to schools -and most of those schools are still losing money. Squeeze the fat cats (please) and their excesses, but you aren’t going to come up with another $5M+ per school to pay athletes (and that’s with big cutbacks in offerings). A handful of the biggest schools will be able to afford it. The rest, including UConn, will probably have to reassess where sports fit in.

Lastly, very few kids could go straight to the pros (at most a handful nationwide per year). For most D-I players, if they weren’t wearing the colors of State U, they’d be lucky to make meal money in some minor league. I root for our players and team because they wear the colors. Take that away and most people couldn’t care less. Remember the illustrious Hartford Hellcats.? How about the Colonials? Yup, nobody cared.

 

[Redding Husky]

My two cents:

1) As the father of a current college football player and having seen what the athletes do, I'm in favor of paying the athletes. My first thought about the money would be minimum wage for the hours they put in. A rough calculation results in payments of $5,000 per year per student athlete. It may be slightly more.

2) Now where do we get the money? The schools don't have it, except for possibly Texas and Notre Dame. Someone suggested the NCAA. That's perfect in an ideal world, but the P5 schools would never agree to a massive equalization of revenue going back to the schools when they think they're responsible for bringing in most of the revenue. Maybe they'd go for a staggered system, something like: $7,500 to P5 players, $5,000 to G5 players, $3,000 to FBS players, and $2,000 to everyone else.

Someone with far greater knowledge of this subject than I will have to come up with a workable solution. I don't see an obvious fix. Maybe the current system is the best in a group of impossible alternatives.

 

[mikedog10]

Sports Illustrated via MSN

UConn Head Coach Randy Edsall: ‘Pay the Players’

This article called Edsall a "current, top-level head coach", does SI know about P5/G5? Whatever, I'll take the compliment!

 

[bmayuc]

I'm not shocked at the completely retrograde opinions of many on the board, but you all should open your minds.

Aside from the right and wrong, we are currently totally duck**d as an athletic department. We are locked into a monopolistic and cartel-esque system that is slowly bleeding us to death. Literally anything that is done to break up the NCAA/Conference/TV monopolies shakes up all the pieces and gives us another chance to better our situation. As far as chaos theory goes, paying the players will abso-duck**ing-lutely throw that infrastructure into flux, renegotiation, etc.

That would be very good for us.

*on the right and wrong* all of those on the "don't pay them" are also completely wrong. Currently the system is structured to use the free labor of 100 teenagers to pay many adults large, market dictated salaries. The laborers are also restricted in their movement, while the handsomely paid administrators are free to come and go as they please. This is horribly unjust, and this must be first established and stipulated. 100%.

As to those who argue the reason this should not change are due to the dire claims of change in system collapsing college athletics: Please understand that this LITERAL ARGUMENT was the bad argument used to prop up and defend LITERAL SLAVERY in the US from oh 1790 to 1860. So, lets also just stipulate that that is a terrible argument and should be strait up shunned. gross.

Final note. If college athletics, through a regulated free market, can't figure out how to distribute LITERALLY BILLIONS of dollars equitably, and also keep in mind that unlocking the ridiculous NCAA ban on 3rd party income will bring in even further $$ streams, it should probably just not exist full stop.

 

[bmayuc]

I'm not shocked at the completely retrograde opinions of many on the board, but you all should open your minds.

Aside from the right and wrong, we are currently totally **d as an athletic department. We are locked into a monopolistic and cartel-esque system that is slowly bleeding us to death. Literally anything that is done to break up the NCAA/Conference/TV monopolies shakes up all the pieces and gives us another chance to better our situation. As far as chaos theory goes, paying the players will abso-**ing-lutely throw that infrastructure into flux, renegotiation, etc.

That would be very good for us.

*on the right and wrong* all of those on the "don't pay them" are also completely wrong. Currently the system is structured to use the free labor of 100 teenagers to pay many adults large, market dictated salaries. The laborers are also restricted in their movement, while the handsomely paid administrators are free to come and go as they please. This is horribly unjust, and this must be first established and stipulated. 100%.

As to those who argue the reason this should not change are due to the dire claims of change in system collapsing college athletics: Please understand that this LITERAL ARGUMENT was the bad argument used to prop up and defend LITERAL SLAVERY in the US from oh 1790 to 1860. So, lets also just stipulate that that is a terrible argument and should be strait up shunned. gross.

Final note. If college athletics, through a regulated free market, can't figure out how to distribute LITERALLY BILLIONS of dollars equitably, and also keep in mind that unlocking the ridiculous NCAA ban on 3rd party income will bring in even further $$ streams, it should probably just not exist full stop.

In short, as with many things in the world, you must decide whether you prioritize ORDER or JUSTICE. When you identify that decision-point, don't ever be the jerk on the side of order when people are being taken advantage of. Pay the kids.

 

[Waquoit]

How does HCRE think this cheap heat will help his program?

 

[gioff23]

If you believe for a nanosecond that the kids are not already getting paid, you're naïve. What I believe he is asking for is to take this out of donors' pockets and sleezy backrooms and make it transparent and somewhat equal. If the FBI were ever to conduct a review of Football, the way they stumbled upon basketball, the SEC would be shut down.

 

[uconnphil2016]

How does HCRE think this cheap heat will help his program?

Eh, we ended up all over the internet for a day. That's a good thing.

 

[uconnphil2016]

If you believe for a nanosecond that the kids are not already getting paid, you're naïve. What I believe he is asking for is to take this out of donors' pockets and sleezy backrooms and make it transparent and somewhat equal. If the FBI were ever to conduct a review of Football, the way they stumbled upon basketball, the SEC would be shut down.

I knew a guy who worked for Georgia Tech, and he said boosters would slip some players s$700 after a game so they could have a good weekend. GT is a pretty low tier P5 team, and even they were doing it to some extent.

 

[polycom]

100% with Randy. This will help start the end of college sports. Amateurism is such a joke especially now with TV deals. We don't need college sports. What we need is fairness and honesty which the current system doesn't give us. People don't want athletes getting paid but are fine with coaches making $M's/year because "the coach has paid his dues" what kind of nonsense is that? We are fine with the Warde Manuels of the world earning $000's of dollars but coaches shouldn't get any money.

Either allow booster to pay players or get rid of college sports but amateurism is over when it comes to basketball & football.

 

[weyuo]

And “normal” students don’t generate any income for the school unlike men’s basketball and football players.

The sport and the fact that people like watching the sport generates the income. Students come and go and get "paid" free tuition, state of the art medical care, housing, meals, transportation and a free audition on television to potential employers while they are briefly here. Lets not forget where the money ultimately comes from. In all of this they seem to be the ones nobody really gives a shit about but the sport can't survive without.

 

[zls44]

The sport and the fact that people like watching the sport generates the income. Students come and go and get "paid" free tuition, state of the art medical care, housing, meals, transportation and a free audition on television to potential employers while they are briefly here. Lets not forget where the money ultimately comes from. In all of this they seem to be the ones nobody really gives a about but the sport can't survive without.

Quit with the pearl clutching.

You watch for the players.
The players do the work.
The players generate millions.

Pay the players. Period.

As to those who argue the reason this should not change are due to the dire claims of change in system collapsing college athletics: Please understand that this LITERAL ARGUMENT was the bad argument used to prop up and defend LITERAL SLAVERY in the US from oh 1790 to 1860. So, lets also just stipulate that that is a terrible argument and should be strait up shunned. gross.

Amen.

 

[crewbear742]

Most players aren't worth the cost of a scholarship let alone a salary. If you did this fairly, each player would receive a market rate instead of a scholarship. Some players would make essentially minimum wage. A few would make six figures. Can you really field a team like this? The market disparity between the first basketball player and the tenth would be huge.

 

[polycom]

Most players aren't worth the cost of a scholarship let alone a salary. If you did this fairly, each player would receive a market rate instead of a scholarship. Some players would make essentially minimum wage. A few would make six figures. Can you really field a team like this? The market disparity between the first basketball player and the tenth would be huge.

Yes. Most companies pay some people a lot and others very little, people have their roles. If you think you can get paid more go somewhere else, thus salaries everywhere will increase.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Yes. Most companies pay some people a lot and others very little, people have their roles. If you think you can get paid more go somewhere else, thus salaries everywhere will increase.

If you want to make this a free market then things will change rapidly. Few, if any, markets have 126 (or whatever is the latest count of FBS members). Fewer still have the majority losing money. If a free market is desired then we'll be down to the P5- (the minus is because some P5's might not make it either). The absolute superstar players will go straight to the pros (a dozen or so per year to the NBA and very few to the NFL because they aren't physically ready) while the best of the remaining will be paid on a scale from a lot of money to less than the current value of a scholarship. The net will be far fewer opportunities in total. That makes sense as there is really no demand for 19-22 year old developmental football or basketball labor outside of the university marketplace. Fans are rooting for the school laundry and the primary economic value for most players is that they wear that laundry. There may be minor leagues that spring up to take some of the extra players, but they'll be playing for meal money and little else. Essentially they'll be "last chance" semi-pro operations at best.

 

[polycom]

If you want to make this a free market then things will change rapidly. Few, if any, markets have 126 (or whatever is the latest count of FBS members). Fewer still have the majority losing money. If a free market is desired then we'll be down to the P5- (the minus is because some P5's might not make it either). The absolute superstar players will go straight to the pros (a dozen or so per year to the NBA and very few to the NFL because they aren't physically ready) while the best of the remaining will be paid on a scale from a lot of money to less than the current value of a scholarship. The net will be far fewer opportunities in total. That makes sense as there is really no demand for 19-22 year old developmental football or basketball labor outside of the university marketplace. Fans are rooting for the school laundry and the primary value for most players is that they wear that laundry. There may be minor leagues that spring up to take some of the extra players, but they'll be playing for meal money and little else. Essentially they'll be "last chance" semi-pro operations at best.

Good. I hope it happens. "Amateurism" for major sports needs to die a painful death

 

[Nostical]

Fans are rooting for the school laundry and the primary economic value for most players is that they wear that laundry.

True dat. The unique combination of undying loyalty to and relentless passion for Dear Old Alma Mater U is what drives interest, attendance, and ratings. No one is going to a D-League game. The players better wake up and realize that whether it’s due to an agent’s greed, their own ego, or collective ignorance, sometimes golden gooses get cooked.

 

[BlueMAB]

UConn students (the ones you make fun of if they stretch to afford to go to Storrs) are already subsidizing athletics. Football sure as hell isn’t making a profit. I love sports, but the Huskies are a money drain. Why should the students subsidize them more?

As for the NCAA, I hate them, but you seem to think they are sitting on an annual $800M profit. That’s revenue. Most of their money is distributed back to schools -and most of those schools are still losing money. Squeeze the fat cats (please) and their excesses, but you aren’t going to come up with another $5M+ per school to pay athletes (and that’s with big cutbacks in offerings). A handful of the biggest schools will be able to afford it. The rest, including UConn, will probably have to reassess where sports fit in.

Lastly, very few kids could go straight to the pros (at most a handful nationwide per year). For most D-I players, if they weren’t wearing the colors of State U, they’d be lucky to make meal money in some minor league. I root for our players and team because they wear the colors. Take that away and most people couldn’t care less. Remember the illustrious Hartford Hellcats.? How about the Colonials? Yup, nobody cared.

First of all, I didn't make fun of any students, I simply said they are under no obligation to attend a school they can't afford. That's a fact.

Second, I didn't say UConn would "have" to pay the students. If UConn can't afford it, so be it, but don't tell me Ohio State can't afford it.

Third, I didn't say it was profit. I understand the difference between profit and revenue. Mark Emmert makes nearly $2 million a year running one of the most corrupt organization in sports, but Jalen Adams can't generate revenue from a YouTube channel.

Fourth, if they reform the rules and allow players to be drafted out of high school, but "stashed" in college, instead of being sent overseas. The NBA can have a wage structure similar to the first 3-4 years of a player's time in the NBA. The team can negotiate a contract with the player. And when it comes to football, most of the P5 schools can absolutely afford to pay their players, and every school can allow them to

Lastly, you, and just about everyone else with the attitude that the people generating the revenue for everyone else should shut up and take what they get is reminiscent of indentured servitude. You pick one source of revenue that could be used to pay the players, when in reality, there could be multiple streams. The schools, the NCAA, the NBA, whoever owns the rights to the CFP and gets that TV money ($7.3 BILLION), private sources/endorsements, agents, the players can generate revenue themselves. There are multiple streams of revenue available. You choose to only focus on two, and say it can't or shouldn't be done. BS.

Every time someone like @weyuo argues that these players should shut up and be grateful I think of this.

 

[kibblesnbits]

First, I just pointed out that no one is obligated to take a Division-I scholarship. The problem is that there is no great economic value for the athletic labor of 99.99% of age 18-21 athletic labor, just as there isn’t for most regular labor in that age group without a college degree. If there was, someone would have started a professional league for those players. The best they could hope for is probably something akin to Canadian Junior Hockey which at least covers room & board and a very small stipend). Most would probably be playing for virtually zero.

I do, however, get your argument that the big schools can afford to pay. Are you arguing for a fixed stipend (how big?) or a true free market? If the latter, will the players have agents? Will they have enforceable contracts with the school or will the Jets be able to sign the next Baker Mayfield when their QB is hurt mid-season? Alternatively, could the school sell Mayfield’s contract to the Jets? Will colleges have four year contracts with players and end up selling their best players after each year to pro teams to generate more revenue? Similarly, if teams are “stashing” players in college will they be able to call them up? If not, why not? Shouldn’t players be able to start accruing major league service time and value toward their new contract as soon as possible?

Of course, such a truly open market plan will not only wipe out UConn athletics as we know it, but most P5 programs as well. As soon as they are treated like minor leagues, with placement of players at the whim of professional organizations, the fans will start to treat them like minor league teams. No minor league team in any sport draws 60,000 fans or significant TV ratings.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the schools are generating most of the economic value (by sponsoring teams for good ‘ole State U) and, in a free market, most of the players would actually do worse. Now, I understand if you were to say, “That’s the price of a free market. Few free markets support the number of competitors we have in college sports so most will go away. Furthermore, big-time college sports masquerading as amateurism is a sham anyway.” If that’s your argument it’s at least philosophically and economically consistent. I could even agree with it (although I’ll miss most college sports) because it is a sham. Just don’t think that you can make them into low-level professional leagues and nothing will change except a re-distribution of wealth, because that’s fantasy.

There’s a continuum. On a small scale (small stipends) it will just wipe out most second and third tier sports (particularly with Title IX impacts, which you ignore but that’s the law of the land). On a larger scale (“free market pay”), it will wipe out all but the largest schools -and those will eventually suffer if they are ad hoc minor leagues. Then again, with fewer current students going to games even at P5 schools maybe a collapse is inevitable in the next 20-30 years anyway.

 

[huskymedic]

Post last winter workout media session:

 

[huskymedic]

 

[BlueMAB]

I do, however, get your argument that the big schools can afford to pay. Are you arguing for a fixed stipend (how big?) or a true free market?
Combination of both. There isn't one "perfect" solution to this. I've stated several times there are multiple revenue streams available to players, don't get stuck on this idea that it "has to be one or another".

If the latter, will the players have agents?
If they choose to.

Will they have enforceable contracts with the school or will the Jets be able to sign the next Baker Mayfield when their QB is hurt mid-season?
Contract with the player that require them to remain in school for a set amount of time, I'd even agree that you can require the players to earn at least an Associates Degree before they leave. Require them to spend at least 2 years in school, the pro leagues can pay them a certain amount. If they don't earn their degree, penalize the pro team with a fine equivalent to whatever they paid the athlete and payable to the school in the form of scholarships. The team can take that penalty out of the player's future earnings.

No transactions mid-season.

Alternatively, could the school sell Mayfield’s contract to the Jets?
No.

Will colleges have four year contracts with players and end up selling their best players after each year to pro teams to generate more revenue?
Who said the colleges are getting paid?

Similarly, if teams are “stashing” players in college will they be able to call them up?
No.

If not, why not?
Because there needs to be stability in the college ranks.

Shouldn’t players be able to start accruing major league service time and value toward their new contract as soon as possible?
No. They aren't major leaguers, and they're being paid. Minor league baseball players who are drafted don't accrue accrue any major league service time until they make the major leagues.



We all watched the Lakers draft Ater Majok after seeing how bad he was at UConn. They drafted his potential and sent him overseas, essentially wasting a pick.

A smart GM would use that draft pick on a HS senior with potential, let him play in college for two years, then bring him in. If they don't want to bring him in, he's a free agent like everyone else that goes undrafted.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I thought they played for a college scholarship worth about $100,000 per year. Take advantage of it guys. They should never be paid by any university. Wanna get paid coming out of H.S., go to some developmemtal league. The fact that it wouldnt draw flys for a viewing audience is besides the point. Also there already are places athletes get paid . . . NFL, NBA, MLB, et al. College is about getting an education. Maybe these student-ATHLETES should work after class to appreciate what they have.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

College athletes are being paid. Roughly a $100,000 investment a year. How about taking advantage of it. Or, how about colleges admitting college capable students, so they can take advantage of it.

 

[BlueMAB]

I thought they played for a college scholarship worth about $100,000 per year. Take advantage of it guys. They should never be paid by any university. Wanna get paid coming out of H.S., go to some developmemtal league. The fact that it wouldnt draw flys for a viewing audience is besides the point. Also there already are places athletes get paid . . . NFL, NBA, MLB, et al. College is about getting an education. Maybe these student-ATHLETES should work after class to appreciate what they have.

College athletes are being paid. Roughly a $100,000 investment a year. How about taking advantage of it. Or, how about colleges admitting college capable students, so they can take advantage of it.

I don't think I've ever seen someone so out of touch with reality in my life.

There is no developmental league for the NFL. There's only college. They aren't allowed to enter the draft until they've been out of school for three years. So anyone with NFL aspirations HAS TO go to college.

Also, the guys who are valuable are not allowed to profit off their value. Jersey sales? No. Appearance fee? No. Endorsement? Nope. YouTube page with ads? Negative.

Why? Because that money could go to the NCAA and the school instead. If Barbarino Nissan wants to pay Jalen Adams $20k to do a commercial he should be allowed to do it. Anyone arguing otherwise only wants to keep these guys as indentured servants.

The point isn't that they're being "paid" with a free education, the point is many, many others are getting rich off the players, and the system is built in a manner that exploits the athletes responsible for the NCAA and university getting billions from CBS and ESPN.

Comments like this last one make you look like a special kind of moron. Many of the athletes are more than capable in the classroom. And it's not the players forcing the school to lower their standards for those who aren't, it's the schools doing it on their own because of THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED.