Not as it’s presently constituted, no. I don’t think colleges should be running hugely lucrative minor pro leagues, but if they do, they should run them honestly, as the businesses they are, with paid athletes. Players should be paid, and they should have a Players Union to negotiate wages, hours and conditions, like any other multimillion dollar sports league.
Lots to unpack/discuss there. Just not on this thread. Or this board for that matter.
Hope we are able to see something of a college football season this year. Not confident at this point based on whats going on across the country and with certain pro leagues (outside of the pro league which is D-1 college football of course – 
). We shall see.
Great question raised by @sushiritto as to whether or not 3rd string punters should be paid.
I do not have an answer. Under the present system, I believe that all Power Five Conference D-I football players on scholarship should be paid.
The form of payment does not necessarily need to involve payments of money except for use of their likeness.
D-I scholarship football players should be paid all tuition, fees, books & personal computer, academic tutoring, room & board (unlimited nutritionist approved food), travel, complimentary game tickets, and health insurance that will continue beyond playing years for ongoing known football related injuries.
Non-Power Five Scholarship players & football related injuries which appear later in life are more difficult issues. A funded health insurance trust & a players union type advocacy group should be established to handle issues not easily addressed and / or not clearly apparent.
Isn’t this what the DI scholarship FB players receive now?
Great question. I should have researched before posting.
I know many former players who had issues with amount of food outside of normal meal times & health insurance continuation.
I have also heard players with the same issues but they were mostly not at Power 5 schools. I thought the health insurance continuation issue was solved, but not sure either, so I was asking as well 
I absolutely think that athletes should be paid for using their likeness in marketing materials, video games, etc. Not sure about paying them $ beyond scholarship money and the rest of the perks they receive (tutoring, unlimited food, athletic training, rehab, etc.).
To bring this back to being on point with the thread, schools that cancel the season of revenue sports and/or ultimately eliminate those sports would in effect be eliminating many other sports and we are already seeing that.
I expect we will see more schools eliminate non-revenue sports teams over the next 6 months, especially among the conferences that have already cancelled the football season. Basketball and hockey seasons at many schools/divisions/conferences grow more unlikely every day as well.
The problem is many of these D1 football players never graduate with a degree (e.g. FSU 45% don’t graduate) nor make it to the NFL, so the tuition dollars they are “paid” becomes irrelevant. Even the ones that do graduate, many have useless degrees in majors with little to no value in the real world.
Some that I think varies by school. Some allow kids to come back at any time to finish their degree (you see them at graduations 2-3 or more years after playing days were over).
Pre-existing conditions are covered now under medical insurance plans. Is there a specialized need to cover football related injuries later in life?
I agree with this, but really, it’s no different than a non-insignificant proportion of others who attend college…many don’t graduate, many major in something useless.
I am not sure giving the athletes cash payments solves these problems, and likely would create new problems.
The health insurance issue may be in a state of change. Just read two helpful USA Today articles. USA Today article states that health insurance must continue for 2 years in Big 10 and for 4 years in PAC 12.
May 18, 2020: Judges’ ruling stands: NCAA can’t limit athletes’ benefits that are tied to education.
The links do not work for me, although they do take you to the USA Today website. Google the articles & they appear, however.
Click on NCAAF College Football Home. Go to the very bottom of the page for the second link to get access to a slideshow of the top 25 athletic programs by revenue.
USA Today article:
These 25 Athletic Programs Raked In The Most Revenue (FY 2019):
-
Texas–$224,000,000
-
Texas A&M–$213,000,000
-
Ohio State–$210,548,000
-
Michigan–$198,000,000
-
Georgia–$174,000,000
-
Penn State–$164,529,000
-
Alabama–$164,000,000
-
Oklahoma–$163,000,000
-
Univ. of Florida–$160,000,000
-
LSU–$158,000,000
-
Wisconsin–$158,000,000
-
Fla. State (FSU)–$153,000,000
-
Auburn–$152,500,000
-
Iowa–$152,000,000
-
Kentucky–$150,500,000
-
Tennessee–$144,000,000
-
South Carolina–$140,700,000
-
Michigan State–$140,000,000
-
Louisville–$140,000,000
-
Arkansas–$137,500,000
-
Nebraska–$136,234,000
-
Clemson–$134,000,000
-
Univ. of Washington–$134,000,000
-
Minnesota–$130,500,000
-
Indiana–$128,000,000
So while those stats are a shame who is to blame. The kid. The school or both. Athletes should adhere to some guidelines for education. Let’s face it very few are going pro. We need to get these kids jobs after they graduate. It’s a shame really.
So let’s just give them money. Fine. That would have to go with some type of financial planning classes or something. Don’t the pros do this now? (not sure with rookies). Can’t imagine a 18-22 year old kid with not a great education being fiscally responsible.
Thats an issue that goes way beyond college athletics. There are thousands of kids graduating every year with degrees that are essentially useless. And often with debt. And gneral understanding of financial planning/economics is pretty poor (not just for college studends though).
I mentioned before that many of these schools, their overall revenue is in the billions, Michigan’s healthcare alone is around $5B, Stanford’s around 7 or 8B. Not having sports would hurt more on the social, emotional side than anything else. For some colleges, yes it could put them or at least their athletic depts in trouble.
“Disclose risks.”
The issue is with college football at least, the players take the risks and the colleges, conferences get the rewards. And you’d need an independent healthcare person to disclose risks, not someone on the university’s payroll.
Here’s the thing, big time college basketball and football are corrupt. When the FBI gets involved, that’s usually not good and they actually have power to wiretap payments between recruits and schools, unlike the ncaas.
Starting 2021-2022 student athletes will be able to be paid for their likeness. Details to be provided no later than January 2021.
On yet another tangent, college football completely distorts the team numbers and scholarship numbers for male non-football athletes. I don’t know the right answer, and I have male and female athletes in my household. But painting with a broad brush, it is MUCH easier for women to get an athletic scholarship than a non-football male. Also the opportunities aren’t there for the male sports either even for a kid willing to play without a scholarship.
I realize that changing that would result in a male/female imbalance again. So no perfect answers. But football has such a large team with a large number of scholarships that it completely distorts the landscape. Also there is a decent argument to be made that football should be separate due to the fact that if honest accounting is used most D1 football programs are profitable. They are subsidizing the athletic department or even the university as a whole, not the other way around. Outside of a few basketball programs and maybe Nebraska volleyball, not many other men’s or women’s sports can make that claim.
College education (and lifetime benefits it brings) or at least opportunity to get one isn’t worh anything? And yes, there should be independent healthcare people to discuss risks. That is true for all discussions/diclosures of risks. Having biases isn’t limited to college football or college athletics.
The FBI is the federal government’s police force. They investigate a lot of different illegal operations. Does that make all industries/entities involved corrupt? Again, no doubt there are problems with college athletics. But seems to me saying basketball and football are corrupt is overly dramatic.
Another fly in the ointment:
Well revenue sharing ain’t happening this year. Could equal issues in draft day for some of these players.
“On yet another tangent, college football completely distorts the team numbers and scholarship numbers for male non-football athletes.”
I did a quick google search and there about 775 colleges with football teams, so really it’s only about 25% of all colleges. Most colleges don’t have problems with football, but I do agree it distorts a lot of things.
“On yet another tangent, college football completely distorts the team numbers and scholarship numbers for male non-football athletes.”
I said big time college basketball/football. I don’t think Stanford and Harvard are getting into a bidding war with SEC teams (not named Vanderbilt) for football players.
And we know who’s on the wiretaps for basketball - Arizona, Kansas, it’s not Chicago or Cal Tech coaches!
FBI investigated the recent college admissions scandal that didn’t involve big-time football or basketball. And in reality the issue wasn’t paying to get your kid into college it was not going through the offficial/proper channels.
Pac-12’s relevance to college football hasn’t been as low as it is now for many decades. Three games played in the college football playoff (2 in the first year and that was the conferences only playoff game win). Big 10 already said scholarship athletes (for all sports from what I have seen not just football) will keep their scholarships if they don’t participate because of Covid concerns. Thought other conferences were doing the same thing but maybe not