I was at that Hampton game. It was ridiculously warm and I remember there being way more than 6k there - but it was a long time ago.
I'm not sure your point though. People will be less interested if the players got $100 a week in spending money? I just don't get how that changes anything.
I got the number from a
Courant article.
First of all, they aren't talking about $5,000. It'll be lower. I'd bet on that (ironically). But to answer your question: Yes, the game will change. It won't be immediate, but the already wide gap between those who can afford it and the AAC/MWC types who can't/won't will grow even larger. At least now there is the perception that a Boise St. or Northern Illinois has a fighting chance to crash the party. They can get a better-than-decent recruiting class every so often. That chance evaporates under virtually any pay-for-play model and you'll see the elite recruit pool swing even more than it has already toward the haves. When even the marginally decent players gravitate away from the AAC schools (and even the lower tier ACC, and other Power 5 schools), the product on the field suffers and unlike this year's problems at UConn, that can't be so easily fixed. As I said, same sport, different game. Remember, at the end of the day, it's about being entertained and all things being equal, the best players are more entertaining. The best play on Sunday...Monday...and sometimes Thursday.
Basketball is a little different due to the difference in length of season and age of the athletes playing in College vs. the NBA. The styles may be different, but they have a similar problem. It took UConn almost 20 years to go from Big East Second Fiddle (Only invited because Holy Cross declined) to National Champion. It's taken Gonzaga 14 years to do the same. They have yet to win the big one, but they are in the conversation. Pay for Play = no more FGCUs. No more Witchita States. No more Gonzagas and no more UConns. That's what is so great about the Tournament. Recycling the teams at the top is good for fans. What's good for fans is good for the sport. It's not good for the Athletic Aristocracy, but they want the lamb slaughtered.
Finally, Look at baseball. A player can be drafted to the pro leagues right out of high school. No college required. A first year, non-bonus baby Bryce Harper type makes about $1000/month plus meal money. The Big East Regular Season Champion and College World Series participant, Louisville Cardinals clock in at #15 on the national attendance list....at 1,436 in average/game. The Louisville Bats are the AAA affiliate (minimum salary is a about double the first year pay) to the Cincinnati Reds and had an average attendance of 7,800. The point again is entertainment value. Triple-A is presumably a better played game, ergo more fan support.
That is the product on the field. Now lets address the fiscal aspect:
1) $100/wk won't appease the athletes. Once received, they'll want more and where does it end? It will make a bad situation worse and won't fix the problem.
2) I truly believe it is not about the money. After all these years of hearing professional athletes say it, I finally understand what they mean. Do you really think Drew Brees needs $51 mil over the next 2+ years? No, and he doesn't either. What he cares about is what the money insinuates to anyone paying attention. It's status. Period. Money corrupts and the Manziels of will still solicit $10,000 from a sports dealer for a couple autographs just because he can.
3) Who do you pay? What sports? How do you address Title XI (this is the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room, BTW)?
