re: Supreme Court Ruling…Possibly the best day of my life.

quote:

---

I will never complain about paying players neither should any professed LSU fan.

---

They already getting paid. ALL that matter are. If you at a D1 uni that excels in sports you are getting paid.

(no message)

quote:

---

We can pay with the best. If I were Nebraska or South Carolina or NC State maybe then I'd be worried

---

Warren Buffet and the United Tobacco Manufacturers of America say 'Hello!'.

quote:

---

I will never complain about paying players neither should any professed LSU fan.

We are a top 5 elite athletic department. We can pay with the best. If I were Nebraska or South Carolina or NC State maybe then I'd be worried

---

While an understandable position, the question then becomes who and how much? Which will lead to other issues such as can the schools afford to pay student-athletes AND maintain the current status of services delivered without significantly increasing the expense to the consumer (you and me).

Does the star QB get paid more than the 4th team safety who never plays? He does in a pure market-based system. Understandably, as his market value to the organization is SIGNIFICANTLY higher. But this isn't a pure capitalistic system. We have Title IX and "fairness" issues to address. And the reality is football players will likely have to be paid the exact same as end of the bench female golfers. That, despite the fact football and basketball (and in limited situations, baseball) are the ONLY profitable sports on campus.

It will almost assuredly create a de facto socialist system on campus. The Joe Burrow's, Cam Thomas's, Dylan Crew's of the world are going to be paid SIGNIFICANTLY less than their true "market value" while members of the diving team or soccer team will be paid WELL over their true market value. That, or LSU will have to significantly increase revenue from the high revenue sports in order to both pay the star football players closer to market value in addition to paying the same for non-revenue producing athletes. ALL while continuing to pay exorbitant coaching salaries and facility/amenities costs in the never ending arms race that aren't going to decrease.

IMO, I think what it will create down the line is LESS opportunities for kids to play collegiate sports. Depending on what the "salaries" are, paying athletes could be a very big expense. To cover it you may see schools start to significantly streamline their athletic departments by cutting non-revenue producing sports (if possible). In a capitalistic world much of that would be women's sports. But title IX is going to prevent that from happening. Thus, there may come a day where the only male sports a school like LSU offers is football, basketball and baseball. For other less profitable athletic depts you may see them offer even LESS sports

I get the players' argument. And it is a very reasonable one. But these kinds of decisions don't exist in a vacuum. There will be a butterfly effect perhaps some aren't looking at right now.

quote:

---

I will never complain about paying players neither should any professed LSU fan.

We are a top 5 elite athletic department. We can pay with the best. If I were Nebraska or South Carolina or NC State maybe then I'd be worried

---

But they do get paid.

And burrow is worth more than say a finley who is transferring, so how do you reconcile that?

Speaking of transfers. Going to be fun when we drop 10s of thousands on a player that just up and goes to another sec school because they are homesick or arent getting enough pt.

quote:

---

I will never complain about paying players neither should any professed LSU fan.

---

Screw yourself it’s going to ruin the game