The only issue I see needing to be addressed is the age of the content here...'bout as original as Ensminger's play calling.
I'll admit just seeing it was from CBSSports was a warning, but this link also needs to have Barrett Sallee warnings--somewhere. I have issues with the way he thinks and what he believes for years. Years, as in dating back to when he was still in school and working in the media department for a SEC school. On a serious note though... The marketability differences between the 130 schools that are in D1 play are extreme. The differences within the SEC cities alone is as well. What Mike Linebacker would get in Texas can't be duplicated in West Virginia--simple demographics leading to how much comes into play. Title IX will raise its head. What's this really solving, anyway? On one side of this we're being pointed to the number of hours they're putting in, the benefits the school is receiving from their participation and how these players should be compensated and it's also under the premise that all the work they would do in 2018 they won't get paid for until 2021 at the earliest? We're operating under the goal of making it easier for these players while they're in school, right?
Maybe they should make any payments to players on a need basis depending upon the income of the players families. A lot of football, basketball and women's basketball players come from more economically challenged backgrounds than participants in non revenge sports. I doubt that many golfers, tennis players, swimmers or womens soccer players come from less than middle class families. If all athletes compensation was based on need rather than an equal amount across the board it might skirt the Title IX issue and would be a lot more affordable for the schools. It would be fair because the 2 or 3 women's golfers and tennis players who would fall under that critera would reveal as much as a football or basketball play in the same financial situation.
I see where you're going here and it's not a route I'd like to see them take. Frankly, it's these types of athletes-the golfers, tennis players, women's soccer players--who are in need as well. In same cases likely greater. Consider one thing here. You're taking head count sports and using them as an example of team count sports. Your soccer players are the ones where we have the parents having to supplement/pay for tuition, room and board. The entire football has all of that covered.
That's great and all but when the soccer team puts 100k in a stadium they can get paid too. Edited to add: But Title IX, I know...
You’d be fixing the system; current players may not benefit but moving forward... If the Wild West/Free Market approach were adopted I wonder how much different things would be. The gulf between academics and athletics is already huge. The gulf between G5 and P5 is also huge, which must indicate there is already significant value in playing at the highest level.
If you don't have a quality offensive line your victories are only good fortune and your defeats are inevitable. O was recruiting coordinator at USC. Go get some big uglies in Long Beach.
