Stansbury's State of Athletics address

[00Burdell]

Because it makes a sham of the whole idea of amateurism. Apparently purity requires everyone gets paid, except the actual players.

The shortest unit of time in the universe will be the time between the first check hits the football players account and a Title IX lawsuit hits the NCAA upside the head.

Oh, and a few follow up questions:
1. Do we pay starters or everyone who plays or everyone on the roster including walk-ons?
2. Do we pay players who become academically ineligible but remain on scholarship?
3. Do we pay players who become injured and cannot play?
4. If we dismiss a player from the team (for whatever reason), does the player have grounds to sue for lost compensation?
5. What about basketball players? What about baseball players? What about lacrosse players? Do we pay them too? Do we pay them less than football players?
6. If we pay athletes, do we still have to feed them? Benefits are fungible - add one here, subtract one there.
7. What happens if what happened at UAB starts happening at the FBS level (where they shut down the football program over budget concerns)?
I could reel off 40 or 50 more of these types of questions that anyone advocating paying football players might want to give some thought to before blindly calling for a an end to amateur athletics.

 

[GTWannaBee]

Read in the AJC that he plans to create a branding department. He really wants to highlight our student athletes that have gone on to lucrative careers in the Silicon Valley, NASA, etc. Points to Stanford's branding as a good example.

 

[beej67]

Because it makes a sham of the whole idea of amateurism. Apparently purity requires everyone gets paid, except the actual players.

What we need is minor league football, so all the (less academically inclined) athletes can go there.

GT v Stanford in the finals .. every year ..