Agree with much of what you are saying, but. disagree about

Agree with much of what you are saying, but. disagree about
by Irishdog80 (2023-03-23 15:45:41)

In reply to: Same with bench guys on NFL. posted by MrE

the amounts being paid. It make sense if athletic departments are willing to make big cuts in their non-revenue sports. A Notre Dame scholarship and maybe an NIL bump from a local or national company for a punter is doable...250K for a punter if you are the best punter in college might work, but not anywhere near that amount if you are at a less than Top 25 school...ranking in football and probably most of the schools--it gets back to replacement value. A team would go with the guy with a 41 yard average instead of the 43 yard average guy demanding 250K. That said, this whole issue is way more complex than just saying "pay the players".

but maybe we just start with changing the model for CFB.

Unionized players, CBA, revenue share.

Then let the schools figure out how they want to distribute the money/assign value, so you and I don't have to think about it. Just like the NFL

The concern I have is that by "changing the model", college

football ultimately loses it's appeal on a broader level and has a negative domino effect on not only the non-Power 5 programs but non-revenue sports across the spectrum. The recent demise of St. Francis
s athletic programs is just the tip of the iceberg if every athlete feels entitled to being "paid" beyond a full scholarship. "Every" athlete does not deserve to be paid additional dollars unless they want to pursue NIL opportunities in their free time.