Brilliant but no chance

Rachel George

Orlando Sentinel

Even Steve Spurrier knows his idea has no chance of passing. But suggesting players receive $300 per game, to be paid by the coaches, is brilliant for a couple of reasons.

First, it acknowledges what many view to be problematic in college football — at the highest levels, coaches and universities are making millions off athletes who make little. As Spurrier pointed out, 50 years ago when there was no money in college football, players got full scholarships. Today college football turns a profit at the biggest schools and players still receive only full scholarships. Spurrier no doubt endeared himself to players (and recruits) who see their likeness on EA Sports and wonder where their piece of the pie is.

Spurrier's proposal was outrageous enough to at least get the discussion started on how athletes can share in the business they are essential to maintaining.

rgeorge@tribune.com

Never going to fly

Chris Dufresne

Los Angeles Times

Steve Spurrier wants SEC coaches to use some of the millions they have earned off the back of free labor and pay players $300 per game. What a guy. That's like tipping the valet at the Grand Hyatt two bucks for retrieving his Porsche from the parking garage.

First, Spurrier and others SHOULD feel guilty for making so much money while players get suspended for trading memorabilia for tattoos. Second, this is never going to fly. The problem no one seems to understand in the pay-for-play argument is, if you're even going to pretend to uphold the amateurish NCAA ideal, you can't just pay the players in the sports, football and basketball, that produce all the revenue. You have to pay men's swimming and women's softball. The combined salaries for SEC football coaches couldn't fit that bill. But give Spurrier credit for spurring more discussion.

cdufresne@tribune.com

Money is there already

David Teel

Daily Press

Since his commissioner, Southeastern Conference ayatollah Mike Slive, doesn't take South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier's $300-per-game trial balloon seriously, why should we? It doesn't take Ruth Bader Ginsburg to figure that paying football players only would land colleges in boiling Title IX waters.

The more relevant issue is whether schools should add "cost of attendance" to the value of all athletic grants-in-aid, in essence an annual stipend of $2,000 to $5,000 to cover expenses such as transportation, entertainment and clothing. The answer is no, for two reasons.

First, most schools, those outside the six major conferences, couldn't afford the more than $1 million yearly expense. Second, between federal Pell Grants and NCAA Special Assistance Funds, there's more than enough money for athletes in legitimate need.

dteel@tribune.com

System is fair as is

Brian Hamilton

Chicago Tribune

The NCAA's highfalutin amateurism ideals are sheer comedy, the whole thing a cartel aimed at lining the pockets of executives, administrators and everyone but players. But it's just as ludicrous to suggest players can't get by with what they already receive.

Oh, the poor, put-upon big-time athlete, who somehow scrapes by with free tuition, free books, a housing stipend, a food stipend they pocket when they eat at a training table, free gear, free swag from bowls and tournaments, adoring women and doors opened for the future by their notoriety in the present.

Create an appeal process for those athletes whose families are nevertheless so poor that they cannot send $50 for, say, a bus ticket home. Everyone else? Be thankful for what you have as it is.

bchamilton@tribune.com