Pac-12 Football Players: All for Them, and NONE for All

FishDuck Staff Editorials 120 Comments

Do Pac-12 football players really get it? While that may seem to be insulting to them, it is a question that many of us who do the donating and buying of tickets (i.e. funding the athletic budgets) are thinking, but are reluctant to articulate aloud in today’s “cancel culture.” Do the athletes understand and appreciate what they have, or are they feeling an early onset of professional entitlement?

Athletes have come together to develop a list of demands and threaten to boycott their sports if their demands are not met. On the table is everything from anti-discrimination and player safety, to intellectual property rights, revenue sharing and other forms of compensation.

In the Pac-12, the group is #WeAreUnited, and their mission is to ensure that future generations of college athletes will be treated fairly. They have a website displaying their list of demands, and you can find it here (the list is extensive). The “Fair Market Pay, Rights and Freedoms” section will generate a variety of reactions from the very first line. They want an even distribution of 50% of each sport’s total conference revenue among players in their respective sports. Let that sink in, and then have a look at the rest of the list.

The Perks of Being a Football Player Twitter

Football Players can catch a few winks between class, practice and meetings in the Sleeping Pods at the Marcus Mariota Performance Center.

We all agree that student-athletes are deserving of fair treatment and conditions. However, let us take a serious look at what they seem to be conveniently failing to acknowledge. These young people get their education paid for. That is important because greater than 95% of them never play professionally.

What is the value of a college football scholarship?

Obviously, there are variables such as the quality of the degree attained and whether the player retires from the NFL, but the value of a full scholarship (the cost of the education), is valued between $250,000 and $350,000, depending upon additional years for a graduate degree if eligibility is left.

Value of the education at $250,000 for four years.
Value of room and board at $25,000 a year = $100,000.
Additional earnings over 40 years working with a college degree: $900,000 (Census Bureau).

We are at a $1.2 million value already for four years of school and that is before the value of all the professional services given to the athletes. Consider the cost of having access to meals and advanced nutrition support and supplements, along with academic tutors, psychological services and psychiatric care, and medical and dental care. For injuries, they have free physical therapy and advanced workout and recovery technology.

UO Athletic Dept. Video

What would this cost with the professional instruction?

Trainers normally charge $100 per hour, yet these athletes benefit from a world-class professional strength, conditioning and training team that spends countless hours with them every day. What would that gym membership cost? We must also be mindful of the $37,000 (California average) in student loans the players will not have to pay back when they are finished with their education. They also get access to world-class facilities, video game consoles in their lockers, dozens of jerseys, shoes and other apparel, and rings if they win championships. (The list goes on …)

Scholarships Are Worth How Much?

Think about this: student-athletes receive at least $250,000 or more per year in total value at such a young age, and yet somehow that is not enough? Consultation with Pac-12 administrators for this article confirmed that the quarter-million dollars of benefits per year is accurate for scholarship value only. Thus, it is a Million dollars of value for a four-year scholarship … with the $900,000 of educational value beyond a high school diploma not included. A total value of nearly two million for a college football scholarship? (Who knew?) 

They want six-year scholarships so they can get both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Does that mean we add another couple hundred thousand in benefit compensation, as well? They also want to be able to test the waters and try to go pro … but if that does not work to their liking, they want to be able to come back to school unhindered.

In many cases, a college education also helps students build friendships and relationships at the university that enhance a career beyond the skills they learn in the classroom. While that “relationship value” cannot be quantified, the impact for many students can be immense.

The John E. Jaqua Academic Center was built for the athletes.

Student-athletes want unrestricted free speech rights which, one may reasonably assume, includes the abolition of any institutional morality or conduct clause that may govern their ability to speak or express themselves despite being paid ambassadors of the institution, the team and the brand.

They want to be able to hire agents and be represented, and they want to be able to receive unspecified and unlimited benefits from third parties. They also want medical insurance to cover them for six years after their college eligibility expires. Wow!

What happened to appreciating the privilege of attending a highly regarded institution for no personal out-of-pocket cost? Keep in mind, they want graduate school paid for, too, so let us not pretend they are only interested in sports. Many are clearly seeking the higher education and the professional opportunities that result from a master’s degree.

Where’s the Appreciation?

Kevin Cline

A typical family has to pay a couple thousand dollars for the required donation and tickets to cheer on Our Beloved Ducks.

As it stands, the list of demands appears to be a gross overreach by a group of under-appreciative individuals who have failed to acknowledge what they already receive in exchange for their presence and participation.

The demands are not only unreasonable, but also deeply disrespectful. One could argue that it would be better to dismiss these unhappy athletes and replace them with others who graciously wear green and yellow with honor and pride.

We are indeed in the middle of a global pandemic and going through a period of global social justice reform. However, that is not a license to abuse the privilege of voice by working to effectively loot the institution.

Frankly, if you do not like it, leave! #NextManUp

Mind Blown Duck
Bay Area, California
Top Photo by Eugene Johnson

For those who are new to this site; we want all opinions and love spirited debate as we love to learn from each other, but we do aggressively delete comments that violate our policies, of which are unlike anywhere on the web. It is not hard to follow all 29 of them as they can be summarized to 1) be polite and respectful, 2) keep it clean for the grandchildren reading, and 3) no reference to politics Charles Fischer  (Principal)

Andrew Mueller, the Volunteer Editor for this article, works in higher education in Chicago, Illinois.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Daily Articles NO MORE on FishDuck

Please see this explanation right here… and to learn about the impact of FishDuck on so many–check the summary right here.  I will be writing intermittently on FishDuck (as the mood strikes) this summer, and a couple of times a week during the football season, and those articles and analyses will be posted here on FishDuck, and the links to my articles will also be available on the new site PuddleHuddle, when it is up soon.

New at FishDuck? Learn about the site right here!

Our 32 rules can be summarized to this: 1) be polite and respectful, 2) keep it clean, and 3) no reference of any kind to politics. Easy-peasy!

Take note though, there are NO STRIKES, NO WARNINGS, and NO SLACK given. Violate the rules and you are gone, as this is what the 99% who post superb comments want. (The Ban could be for weeks, months or permanent) For the less than 1% out there who do not have impulse-control … as you write your comment that violates our rules, ask yourself, “is this worth getting banned over?”

FishDuck members….we got your back.  No Trolls Allowed!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As a mother of two male collegiate Athletics, I am really disappointed to see the Pac 12 cancelling fall sports. Although I understand WHY they cancelled it and it had nothing to do with COVO19.

Did anyone actually READ the demands from the players, (or some crazy law firm)? It is in the article with a link! PLEASE READ IT

I know there are a lot of players that would LOVE the opportunity to be able to play college sports. COVO19…limit fans, wash hands, stay away from older family members ,remember these are COLLEGE student and most live on campus away from family.
Our world is getting lazy and greedy, and it makes me sad and frustrated. READ the article, wake up everyone! Work ethic and making good personal choices should always win. Thanks for a great article, it had facts!

95% of college athletes will never go PRO, college athletes are receiving a FREE education with generous stipend money, in addition to many other PERKS! I know a lot of players disagree with the decision but are afraid to speak out because of this new, “cancel culture”! Again wake up people!
Again thanks for a well written researched article, it should published with the general media. Since the article does not met the “Media Narrative” I will not hold my breath


I am curious as to why you think the cancelling of fall sports didn’t have anything to do with COVO-19 ??


Wow! Thought provoking article with thoughtful and passionate comments! That is what keeps me coming back to FishDuck! Wish I could have got on and commented yesterday, but work reared it’s ugly head…

I am really not trying to be political (and Charles, if you think I am too political, pull this and I will understand).
This is a very complex issue, that crosses a lot of lines and values. To some degree, today’s acceptable attitude of “it’s all about me” contributes to the dilemma in that “if it’s all mine, why should I share?“

That is more than a little selfish, but again, understandable .

The system as it was designed seems very much like socialism, i.e., the work of the many for the benefit of all. Football, being the prime revenue source, helps the other sports (which may not generate the$$, but those “other sports” absolutely benefit the student/athlete experience and life lessons, and for a lot more students).

However, with the playoffs for sale, capitalism has inserted itself into the discussion to the point that the tail is wagging the dog. People and companies (even non-profits) are getting rich promoting and selling bowl games and playoffs, so it is no wonder the athletes want a piece of the pie they cook. Again, understandable.

While there are no right answers and no wrong answers, having the discussions is the best way to start working towards solving the predicament.
Thank you to the writer and all commenters for your thoughts and ideas. And THANK YOU Charles, for giving us the opportunity to share with our fellow Duck fanatics!

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

This discussion has been epic, and the only negative is how the author pulled a FishDuck “fowl” and chickened out of responding to readers as I request all writers to do. He had additional information that was meant to be placed in the comments to enrich the discussion…but alas, I can only do so much.

Hey Pitt, the “socialism” part of the how the athletic budget is run (take from football and give to other sports) is something I’ve been “Ducking” up to now, but since we have a ton of discussion time ahead of us–we will probably take the time to delve into it eventually.

Santa Rosa Duck

The lack of follow up by the author is a serious disappointment.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

There is quite a story surrounding it, and suffice it to say–this was his first and last article for this site.


My starry-eyed version is that all the athletic teams are part of one big family, one that shares–thus what football pulls in is apportioned to all the members. Simplistic and idealistic, I know, but it’s how I feel.


To simplify a complex issue in these overly politicized times (this will NOT be a political comment Charles… so no worries :) )

  1. Athletes on scholarship do receive a ton of benefits by virtue of their athletic ability over regular kids, and yes, they should be appreciative (I am willing to bet a poll would answer that most are).
  2. Athletes should not EVER be punished for having a legitimate side job, earning money that is fair and square any way they seem fit, or fair-trading a jersey for a tattoo a-la Ohio State.
  3. This wouldn’t be an issue if the NCAA wasn’t so against kids earning anything in addition or on top of the scholarship they already receive, with the very bizarre exception of millions that kids get promised and signed to from pro baseball prior graduation (how this became an exception is wild to me, not that i agree or disagree).
  4. Requesting to have half of the revenue (not the profits, but the revenue) because they are making money playing and using their likeness is absurd. No business in the world, let alone the USA, runs like that. In addition, this is not pro football, and if that’s what they want, then a pro level before the NFL could be created (like Jr hockey up here).

The NCAA could have avoided a lot of this with getting rid of those silly, seemingly “unAmerican” rules that don’t allow a player to earn money from their own likeness – to me that is the ultimate free enterprise, and if it is earned outside of scholarship and outside of school money, what do they care so badly at all?

Great debate that I missed and thoroughly enjoyed reading!!!!


Better late than never, Quackanadian. #’s2 & 3 have always resonated with me. A players time is already heavy with the athletic duties added to the class time. If he or she wants to add a job to that, I can only say more power to them. Definitely a case of the NCAA creating a problem where it wouldn’t exist otherwise.


You and 30Duck got it right.

Bob Rodes

I completely agree with the students’ demands that are directly related to COVID-19. But to attempt to weave in a bunch of broader demands based on what is clearly a naive understanding of the university business is to dilute the message. Gain a clearer understanding of the business you work for, and the demands that you are inclined to make will likely appear more reasonable.

One example of that is that the students appear to believe that a university can just tap into their $27.7 billion endowment to reinstate all discontinued sports. Endowments aren’t cash on hand; when someone “endows” something, they put up enough money for the interest to pay for it over time. To grab one example from Stanford, “The John R. Adler Professorship” pays extra salary to the “John R. Adler Professor of Medicine.” Stanford can’t “tap into” it to pay for athletics; John R. Adler put the money into the endowment for the express purpose of paying that extra salary, to make that professorship more attractive. So, endowment money is earmarked for specific purposes. If someone wanted to endow Olympic sports at a university, then he or she would put money in the endowment fund to pay for that.

I’m in favor of allowing NIL profits, but there are a lot of questions in my mind. The players that will make money directly off of NIL will usually be quarterbacks, running backs and the like, and your average defensive tackle or offensive guard isn’t going to see much of that. So what about distributing some of that money to the rest of the team, given that that team is part of what makes someone’s NIL worth anything to begin with? And if that’s ok, what about the fact that a student plays for a particular team, such as Oregon or Notre Dame? How much is the team brand recognition of that aspect of the students’ NIL worth? And then, should any of that money go to, say, hockey or baseball students? Why or why not?

Another question. All those guys are supposed to “voluntarily and drastically reduce lavish and excessive pay.” What happens when Uncle Phil offers a $10 million, two-year, Nike endorsement contract to a hotshot quarterback at Oregon? Will he need to also reduce that lavish and excessive pay, and tell Phil that he’s going to pare that down to $2 million? I don’t think so. Pointing fingers is naive. Furthermore, that $5 million a year is enough to give every student at Oregon $220 or so. What group of Oregon students is going to take away that $220 and keep it for themselves? Maybe a “Student Athletes Association” could take that $5 million and split it between each athlete,What’s the business justification for doing that? As surely as business makes money, money makes business. Not understanding the business ramifications of demands made involving money is naive.

I’m also entirely in favor of working to end racial injustice. But the ideas that the students are putting forth are not really new ideas. Financial aid for low-income Black students was pretty much the main thrust of the Affirmative Action movement in the 70s and early 80s. I think it’s helpful, but it doesn’t address the deeper problem of racism, which is that people are almost as afraid of letting go of their racial prejudices as they are of admitting that they have them. And that goes for everyone of every race. We can’t grow closer to one another until we admit that we are allowing racially motivated mistrust to keep us apart. Let’s sit around a table, all admit to our racially motivated mistrust of one another, and start to talk it out, and we’ll have made a great step forward. Until then, not so much.

One other practical problem: define the “our” in “experts of our choice,” in a way that allows it to have a definition that goes beyond you. You’re going to leave, and new people will need to choose. With respect, are White people, or people of other races, allowed to be part of the “our” that chooses the experts down the line? If they are, then why are they? And if not, why not? If they aren’t qualified because of their race, well, maybe, but that gets pretty sticky. It will take some thought to define that in a way that is free of racial prejudice. These are the sorts of things that people of different races need to sit down and have some honest discussions about.

As for distributing 50% of revenues to athletes in their respective sports, that sounds like it might be a good thing on the face of it. But, if you are going to give money to athletes who aren’t bringing it in, what about other students who aren’t athletes, too? Why should they be left out, just because they aren’t athletes? That said, from what I understand most of those revenues go to funding those other sports. Does this really boil down to students saying that they want the money for themselves, instead of having the administration spend it on them? Seems to me that that might be so.

So, I’m kind of on the fence about this. I can see from their perspective that their universities are raking in millions from their work, while they don’t have enough cash to make it home for Thanksgiving. That seems unfair. But it doesn’t seem fair, either, to be paid precisely according to individual cash value, when each individual is a part of a larger organization that has more than simple monetary value and has — ideally — to keep the welfare of all of its students in mind. As with most things in life, there needs to be a compromise between two conflicting ideals, and I don’t see that this list of demands takes both of those ideals into account. They would have been better off focusing on COVID-19 and racism, and leaving money to another time. As Lincoln said when some of his cabinet wanted to declare war on England, one war at a time.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

So many ponder-points there Bob, and my goodness you walk-the-walk. (Not all editors can write as well as they edit)

(Bob is one of our volunteer editors and has impacted the careers of many students at Oregon over the years with his writing counseling. Like a scholarship, his advice may be free, but of unbelievable value and we are very lucky to have him on the team.)

One of the major student organizers commented that money spent on non-revenue sports was the university’s bad judgment of which the football players should not be held accountable for!


After reading this article and everyone’s comments, very much educated. As Robin would say in the old Batman series “Holy Catastrophe Batman.” Thanks All!

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Amen. So much wisdom in this community! A day like today is a treasure…

David Marsh

Personally I don’t really but the streangth and conditioning argument as some amenity. Yes, student athletes and in particular football players get access to some amazing facilities. Though they are also asked to maintain a full time job. Yes, according to the NCAA athletes can only have 20 hours of team activities a week but as much as anything else they are expected to work out and practice by themselves or with teammates in team in player organized practice sessions… Oh and film study which the majority of that time is spent individually.

When it comes to the fall quarter or semester football players have all of that and they have to be students which is a full time job for many as it is. There is a reason why most football players take “easy majors”… At Oregon sociology seemed to be a popular one when I was there. Herbert is far and away the exception in his choice of major.

Most every student would love to have access to the facilities, support programs and certainly the scholarship money that comes with being a football player.

I know I wouldn’t have been able to graduate with my three majors if I was an athlete (I lack the skills in that department so much the very notion is funny to me).

Then there are the medical conditions stemming from playing football. Of all the demands put forth by the players I was absolutely the most behind the extended medical benefits. Those kids are putting their bodies on the line for us to be entertained. The least we can do is ensure they get every bit of medical care they need.

There is no question student athletes get access to an education that put most students in debt for a considerable time of their lives (that is another issue completely) and for better or worse student athletes (particularlly football and basketball players) have a very different college experience than the rest of us. The reality is it is somewhere between the most romantic and the most tragic versions.

When it comes to compensation I don’t know how to fairly ensure the monitary aspect will work…. I think for starters though is at least allowing student athletes to pursue the majors they want and ensure they can complete them… Probably for starters giving athletes a reduced credit requirement for their term of their sport is a good starting place.

Jon Joseph

Great points and questions. Where I played in D3 as is true today, you had a lab that conflicted with practice; lab wins. With no negative consequences for you missing practice.

But Dad was paying my tuition and none of my teammates were attending school on an athletic scholarship.

Football? If we had 500 fans in the stands it was a big deal.

Hockey? We did sell out every game, but it was 4.000 folks SRO. And unlike football, we were good.

I simply do not see at the P5 level, the student-athlete model withstanding political, as we have already NIL witnessed, scrutiny?


To quote Iggy Pop from the song Lust for Life, “I’m worth a million in prizes “.
The amounts in the article are not tangible amounts and they’re also compromised of averages, which are devoid of meaning when considering half the football team graduates with a degree in Sociology. The graduation rate for college football lags behind other sports as measured by the adjusted graduation gap or AGG – see the link below. College football has basically become a year around job for the players and studies take a back seat for many.

Football players are grist to pay for everything else. Keep in mind the marginal cost of 85 scholarships is a pittance for schools that have significant student populations. The real costs of college football are the coaching salaries and facilities. The players are worth so much that schools are willing to spend millions on lavish facilities to entice them to sign and millions on coaches.

The whole scheme is gross. What makes it even more disgusting is that an elaborate purity code call amateurism regulates player behavior off the field. Ordinary students are not subjected to these ridiculous rules. A drama student on scholarship can get paid to make a movie during the summer and no one bats an eye but god forbid a football player gets free tattoos or something of real value like an endorsement deal or a sponsorship by the NFL. Something is rotten in the state of college football. It’s about to change and it’s way past due.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

So….don’t take Sociology?

I don’t agree with your view, but love your writing. As I tell our writers….”righteous indignation always works.”

Guest articles from great writers are always welcome whether they agree with me or not!


Charles, read the link I attached. Very informative.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

“You can lead a horse to water….”

It seems your argument is based on success as defined as a graduation rate?

All you can do is offer the opportunity of a college education, provide tutors, and the student has to take it from there and if they want to….they can graduate.


Two things. It’s pretty obvious that players are athletes first and students second. There’s a huge pretense by the NCAA of graduating players but athletic talent wins out in the end. They could graduate players at a much higher rate than the student population if they put more of an emphasis on academically qualified recruits. Many of the players would be better served with vocational training than going through the motions of getting a degree. Secondly, the whole concept of amateurism is nonsense. There’s no moral or ethical justification for it. It’s nothing more than a fig leaf for the schools and the NCAA but does real monetary damage to the players. So the end result is an exploitative business model that operates under the guise of a non-profit with a higher calling.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

I gotta hand it to you ptd….you did a nice head-fake and I bit.

It is common that some on the site want to “win an argument” (see No. 29 here) and will try to deflect the discussion to another point and run you down multiple tunnels in that rabbit hole until finally….they can point to something and say, “I win!”

We are a long way from the original point of the article and what the value of a college education is. Kudos to you!


An education is valuable. No dispute there. College football is not the vehicle to educate people. That’s not it’s purpose. So the premise of the article is completely disingenuous. I enjoy Oregon football as entertainment but I’m under no illusion that it’s primary mission is education.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

We’ll disagree on that one, as I believe there are thousands of athletes who attended Oregon in all sports funded by football that have been or are in professions that otherwise would not have happened without the athletic scholarships.

This is a great example, and of course the Jacqua Academic Center available to current Oregon athletes was not there for Judge Haggerty!


Students on athletic scholarship represent 1% to 2% of the total student population. College football players represent a fraction of that. It’s not a transformative system in regards to higher education but it is a big business for those that profit from it.

Mike West


wouldn’t it be better to wrap a degree program around to what the kids learn from being a part of some of the most successful organizations in the entire country?

From the coaching, to the ongoing projects to be the best, to organizing practices, to the benefits of teamwork in “projects” (like in practice, lifting, off season drills etc).

These kids learn a ton of skill sets in order to be the best.

Surely, that is an education all unto itself


I’m not sure how useful this experience is in the real world. It might have some value. Many football players have no business going to college in the first place. They’re not academically prepared for the rigors of college but they have the athletic talent for the school to exploit. It’s a no brainer for the coach to roll the dice and offer a scholarship. It would serve a better purpose to allow players like this to go to vocational school instead and still play football.


while I won’t argue or disagree with the fact that football pays for the rest of the AD’s budget. I wonder how you expect the university to get around that. they are bound by title IX so in paying football players they would have to pay every other sport equally.

Also I am not sure we cover this often but these “Lavish Facilities” are not really at the cost of the AD. the three biggest for Oregon are the jaqua Academic center, Hatfield-Dowlin Complex and the Mo. 2 of the three were basically gifted to the university by the knights, and the third was from another donation(Ed Moshofsky). So while these are some elite facilities in most cases they only cost the AD the cost of upkeep.

Last point, While players should have every right to make money off their NIL why should we call the penance for amateurism as a whole It is not the universities/NCAA’s job to create a minor league. the university isn’t mandating three years removed from high school graduation to play. Every other sport has a system for athletes to play except for football and that is probably why these players feel so removed from everything yet none of these rules fall to the NCAA/conferences/Universities.


The debt service on the facilities is approximately 17% of the athletic budget. They’re not free. And while it’s nice to have big donors not all schools have that luxury. There’s been a facilities arms race in college football that last couple of decades that has stretched budgets to the brink. And as I have stated, these lavish facilities were constructed to recruit elite athletes. They’re worth millions to the schools that can sign them. College football is a business first and foremost. Player success in the classroom is a distant second. The charade of amauterism that covers it all up is crumbling.


I am not debating the cost at other schools, arguably schools like Washington State who is deep in the red should not have college Athletic departments. or at least not in the modern approach. yet 17% of your cost to fund building you need to have the tier of equipment that different athletic departments doesn’t seem excessive by any means. I mean if football is a business then I am actually more surprised that oregon is spending less than 20% of their income on facilities debt service.

You may be right that the “charade of Amateurism… is crumbling.” But the athletes enjoying scholarships in the WAC and MW won’t have a sport if college takes the route to become a minor league.

But I suppose we can just disagree.


Or maybe the solution is to eliminate amauterism as a guiding principle. Let athletes earn endorsements and / or get sponsored by professional teams like hockey players do. The big time players will make money off the field which is good for them and will introduce an element of fairness into the system. This could be a boon for college basketball. Top players won’t declare after their freshman year and can develop in college. I don’t have a problem with college and pros working together. If pros want to draft and sponsor college players, I’m all for it. The players demands are in response to a system that exploits them. They are bound by a ridiculous leash called amauterism.


My opinions run very similar to the author’s as written.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

And I appreciate reading that, and THANKS.

(Especially since you agree with me and I’m in the minority today!)


The players can demand anything they want. The reality of what they get is a different story. Is the current system the best system? Nope…Are all the demands realistic? Nope….If the players opt to “go on strike” does Collegiate sports cease to exist? Nope….

Some of the “demands” seem reasonable enough to have a discussion on how they can be implemented. Some of the demands have economic implications that are laughably unrealistic.

What is needed is strong leadership during this time. Perhaps a collective group of leaders to lead us out of this dim time. The leadership needs to have a vision of a brighter future that provides opportunities for many people, both Students and Athletes.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Jon Joseph has been at the forefront of proving how that is so true; great leadership is needed at crunch time and this IS it.

The university Presidents figuring this out? (One demand by the players of reducing salaries is acknowledged when referring to ‘Livin’ Large -Larry…)


I agree with the question in your article “Do Pac-12 football players really get it?” and the premise that your are pointing at but I think the inclusion of future earnings is a bit of a red herring. We can give the players an at cost evaluation for their playing at probably north 500K for their work but I think including the value of their future work is a distraction of the actual argument here.

So first let’s talk the revenue split. The revenue split is based on each sport now. as laid out the men’s basketball and football would make bank while practically every other sport would make nothing. I couldn’t find a current fiscal report of Oregon but I found one from 2017 also I really don’t know how to calculate the Broadcast royalties in so for sake of ease we will only count ticket sales in the cost.

football 22M in ticket sales over 85 Scholarships is 130K per player(Just on ticket sales), golf 0 tickets sales over 4.5 Scholarship is $0. This fact does not yet even cover the legitimate fact that title IX prevents “discrepancies” in costs spent on sports. What I mean is football can cost more than women’s soccer but only on justifiable discrepancies I.E. football pads and equipment costs more than soccer. This does not allow you to pay them differently.

Failure to comply with, title IX means the University losses all Federal funding; Most notably students in attendance who qualify for federal aid/grants would be stripped of those benefits. I appreciate what sports scholarships do but my guess is that these benefits allow for more low income/minority students to attend p12 schools than all scholarships combined.

Another point along the 50% revenue split is that under article 3. end racial injustice the players ask for 2% of revenue to be spent on financial aid for Low-income black students. So the players are now asking for a majority of the Revenue. Now at front I don’t disagree with this request it is when it gets bundled with the 50% revenue.

Now let’s talk about Protect all sports. I don’t disagree with the idea in theory but if football takes 11 Million from ticket sales alone to pay scholarshipped athletes how does that affect golf/ any other non revenue sport. golf cost the university 1.2M in expenses alone. the noted cost is that football earns ~75 percent of the AD budget. If half of that is going to paying the players(Not including their resources/scholarships every university will have to reduce their team sports. And while stanford may have 27.7B in their Endowment I promise it is all earmarked for research and teaching and any spending outside of that will likely breach contracts the university has made when entrusted with this large sum of capital.

Lastly under the protect all sports they want to eliminate excessive expenditures. While in theory this sounds great. Everyone here agrees that Scott is paid way to much that the cost of keeping the p12 headquarters in san fran but let’s talk the legality of their other point. Specifically cutting coaches and administrators salaries. 1. if they just cut the salaries they would be breaching contract. Most if not all p12 coaches have a legal contract with the school guaranteeing their salary. this is not a standard at will employment where cutting salary can often be legal.

2. if the pac 12 wrote policies enacting salary caps on coaches they would likely be violating antitrust law because schools are competing the act of working together to fix prices(Salaries) would be illegal. Search Law V NCAA for an easy example of this.

Also on a slightly side note here Why would the players want to Stifle their coaches pay. I’ve consistently seen Oregon players say that they feel safe playing for Cristobal on Twitter, I’ve seen them sing his praises and if you stifle his pay here he will inevitable leave for a higher paying position at another university.

In conclusion I think that many(Not all) of the points they asked for where unobtainable from the start but I would like to comment on points they made I agree with and should either be enacted or already have been enacted.

  1. Maintain eligibility if they player opts not to play. (The NCAA has already approved this)
  2. Prohibit COVID-19 Liability Waivers(If they did play i think the school would be liable.)
  3. Mandatory Covid Safety Measures.
  4. form a permanent Civic-Engagement task force
  5. Schools Spend a minimum of 2% revenue on aid for low-income students, Community initiatives and development programs(I honestly would be surprised if not a single school doesn’t already meet this standard.
  6. Medical coverage following the ending of eligibility
  7. NIL
  8. one time transfer
  9. complete eligibility after attempting to be drafted

Again, I agree with the concept at heart of the Players united but overall i think they went in bad faith negotiations with the pac12. as such I think it is hard to take it seriously. I mean even some of the things I agree with(NIL, one time Transfer, Extended eligibility) are less the pac 12 and more the NCAA whom the pac 12 has no control over.


I want to apologize for the essay that is likely longer than the article… and if you read my thoughts, Thanks!

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

And this is why I am open to guest articles, as you have one right there!


Fantastic read UtahDuck. Thanks for it.

Jon Joseph

If you have to apologize, I MEGA apologize.


Read and appreciated. Thanks for your thoughts and efforts in posting this.

Mike West

Love the contribution UtahDuck.

Great points to ponder.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Agreed Utah…you killed it. You are another champion-commenter here; thanks for the thoughts.

Santa Rosa Duck

Mind Blown Duck, thanks for the article. I see most here are not pleased with this article from you. Well, Charles says we have a forum here and my two bits is you are on point from my perspective. I played junior college basketball a long time ago and when I got to Oregon, i tried to walk on. Hah, I lasted about three hours but I would have loved to be an indentured servant. Oh well, if we ever get past COVID 19, this is the next big issue threatening college football and all other sports on campus.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Yep…I think that double-whammy is what is so depressing at times. Both issues look to be long-term ones and not going away.


You know I had recommended you take down the previous article on this subject, and now you’ve doubled down.

I gave excellent logical rationale why the players have structured the demands the way they have including where they are being extremely thoughtful towards non football players.

Notice that in their demands they want to stop the lavish facilities spending, which this author ignores.

Through this whole episode of pac 12 United I continually reminder of the South Park episode with the old southern landowner in the office of a college AD. He sees the picture on the wall of the football players and says “I’ll give you $50 for the white ones and $100 for the back ones!” The AD recoils and says “Sir! They are Student-Atheletes!” The Southern landowner also is shocked and then says “Student-Atheletes!?. Whoaho! That IS brilliant Sir!”

All that being said I’ll read articles here when they are appropriate, but I don’t want to be associated with your site any longer. This is my final comment.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

No sweat. If you cannot handle an opinion that you disagree with–so be it. We want all sides here, including the minority ones as we learn from all. Not all articles published on FishDuck are going to be “one-way” as I allow all the writers to state their own views and then we discuss it from there.

For example, it is apparent that regular writer and commenter, Jon Joseph, disagrees with this article and yet I want both views, and thus both are published.

And….as I’ve stated before, you are welcome to write a rebuttal article and we will publish it. Just email it in a Word Doc or in the email itself. (Go to “Contact” on the Menu button at the top of the site)

Or don’t; the only one you punish withholding your opinion is yourself. I try to accommodate everyone….except the “Cancel-Culture” mob.

(Please note….I did not write that I liked your opinion, only that you write well, and we need to hear all opinions here, especially if it is one of disagreement or in the minority.)

Although on this subject–I am the minority with the author and a few others. Oh well. GREAT discussion!

It is a great and a necessary discussion. To be clear, I disagree in part with the author, but not in whole. The author made many good points. As did you Sir, in your rebuttal to my comment. As did many others in rebuttal to my comments.

This is very complex issue.

However, a larger long term ‘financial’ issue, is evidenced by today’s Pac-12 Network firing of Mike Gam. There is no plan to replace the network’s lead anchor.

THIS topic, especially with the fall season canceled, is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot compared to the entire conference failing financially from the top down.

As the conference continues to fall financially and competitively behind the other 4 P5 conferences, what will there be for the players to split up?

Why will Mario stick around when Gus Malzahn is making a base salary of $6.8M a year and is the recruiting beneficiary of a solvent network?

I can only hope that president Schill is keeping his eye on the long term financial ball?

USC for example, will not stay on board a sinking conference ship.

Kim Hastings

but I don’t want to be associated with your site any longer.” So, exactly what happens when you reject association with a site such as this? Do you get to keep your decoder ring, or do you have to send it back? Is there a tax benefit in publicly rejecting our company? Furthermore, this isn’t an airport. You don’t have to announce your departure.

Now, to the topic at hand. I read the list of demands as a negotiation starting point. What was my first clue? When they “demanded” that Larry Scott voluntarily give up a major portion of his salary. Who “demands” such a thing and hopes to be taken seriously?

The author of this well-written article made the pictorial point about the sleeping pods that the players enjoy. It was offered as a sort of finger wag at the players who would dare to ask anything more. Good Lord, I would hope they would have this kind of creature comfort. They were just involved in a 35 mph car collision for my enjoyment! I say whatever they need to calm their jangled bodies is A-OK with me.

Now to compensation of a financial nature. There are strong arguments on both sides, so let me just add this. The genie is out of the bottle, gang. There will be compensation of dome sort and it will happen this decade. The devil (and the angel) will be in the details.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Kim! (And the Hot-Wife in the Photo!)

For those who do not know him–Kim was our humor writer on Saturdays for YEARS and my gosh…do you know how hard it is to sit and decide to write something funny? Sometimes the best joke was an inside one for me, and he always knows how to make me laugh. (I really liked the decoder ring part)

You are right about the Genie….now what will come of it? We will have time to ponder….

(BTW…I recognize that I violated our rules about “No Shaming,” and “No Mocking,” with allowing Kim’s post. But since Solar365 has declared he is on the way out–I bestowed some Executive Privilege on Kim.)


When they are appropriate? For whom, exactly? You don’t have to agree with, or even like what someone else has to say, but who are you to decide what’s appropriate and what isn’t?

Leave this site if you wish, that’s your right, but don’t demand that it changes because you don’t like what someone else is writing about.

I don’t personally agree with a lot of things that have been either said or written about, but I’ll damn sure stand up for someone else’s opinion, more specifically their right to have one…even if it’s different than mine.

Mind the door, Solar365, and have a great day….

Santa Rosa Duck

I think this is the first post I have seen on FishDuck that promotes the Cancel Culture.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Yep, Solar365 posted late Thursday night to Denverduck07’s article, as he did not like it and told me to take it down.

I do not like some of the opinions expressed today, but would not dream of taking them down; seeing all sides is what this site exists for.

(Correction: I have taken down comments/posts that violated our rules, but that was because of the behavior, not the opinion given.)

Lou Farnsworth

I am increasingly coming to the opinion that one part of the overall solution to this matter will have to involve a High School draft by the NFL.
Seniors in HS that are considered potentially capable of playing professionally could be siphoned off before college, ( similar to MLB ), and play in a minor league feeding into the NFL. Those not taken into the minors would have to commit to a full 4/5 year contract to play for whatever university they wind up going to.

The antiquated notion of “amateur”, has to be jettisoned: Players who didn’t make it in the pros could come back in a portal system to have a regular four years of eligibility in college. And a stipend should be payed to every scholarship player whether they are “ex-pro” or not.


A better way to look at it, if you want to use professional sports, is hockey. Players are drafted typically at 18 years old, and other than a select few (usually only about maybe five total) who end up playing in the NHL, the rest continue playing in Juniors, or go off to college. They aren’t paid by the team that drafts them, nor are they given equipment, training, or compensation of any kind. They do get occasional guidance as far as where they would like to see them develop more, but they don’t do the training…that’s up to them and their current amateur team.

If a player continues with Juniors, they will either play out their eligibility (up to the age of 21) or turn pro if the team that drafted their rights and them agree that’s the right move. That goes for college bound players as well, BUT if they run out their eligibility in either Junior or college but do not sign with the team that drafted them, at the end of four years they become a free agent and are able to hire an agent and negotiate a contract with any team. Up until that time, the team that drafted them owns their negotiation rights.

That’s a model I could see working. It keeps the amateur status of the player but also gives them some leverage as far as their future goes.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

You and I don’t often agree, but this is why I want to see you post often; I did not know how the Hockey model worked, and it makes sense, but there are a ton of kinks to be worked out.

Thanks for your well-written, well thought out posts.

Jon Joseph

Exactly. Please see my take on NFL-Lite above.


How about this idea, take all the revenue from football, use it to pay the bills for putting on the show and pay for the players benefits, then the remaining funds get distributed to the players.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

And destroy all the other sports? Boy that is fair!


Turn them into club sports.


Literally one of the players unite demands is to keep all sports open. Their example of this is that stanford should use their 27.7 billion endowment to fund sports.


IIRC, the reference to other sports was not in the original “demands” and was later added in after early blowback.

As it stands, it’s a token gesture that is utterly unrealistic within the context of the other demands/talking points for a variety of legal-regulatory and fiscal reasons that have been brought up in other discussions.

Jon Joseph

It has ‘Homa’ written all over it, as did the NW players attempt to form a union.

And it should be noted that many the Pac-12 CFB almost immediately back-pedaled from many of the demands.


Title IX says that isn’t legal. You could remove some other male sports, but Title IX requires equal treatment for female athletes.


You’re right but I think you can put many sports into the “club” category, along with some woman’s sports and still meet the requirement of Title IX. We don’t need to have all the sports at UO that we have now.


I agree, The issue is that the NFL has no interest in footing the costs associated with a developmental league. Take MLB for a second the MLB is losing money left and right for their lower leagues and is even in the process of cutting teams. the NBA has a the G league which losses money. these lose money yet it is beneficial because the cost of these sports is nothing compared to football. A developmental football league will lose loads of money.

Also what does the NFL gain from having a college system. people will watch college football to some extent no matter what. I haven’t missed watching a game in nine seasons(I’m sure many of you much longer) we are built in fans that even if 2016 comes along we still love our ducks a developmental league won’t have that. Also you become a new viewer if you decide to watch Mariota when he is drafted by the Titans or Herbert at the chargers.

Simply put the NFL has a great gig getting a D league in college football. one which they won’t lose money.

Jon Joseph

Lou, how about a CFB Elite Division? Each school ‘adopted’ by an NFL team. Players who want to be paid and pursue the equivalent of an AA degree over 5 to 6 years of eligibility, are drafted out of HS. They join the NFL union, are paid ‘union scale, and also have the right to market their NIL.

The 32 schools stay in conference for all other sports. The Elite share some of the Elite money with other conference members. A school, for example Vanderbilt, could drop football but remain a member of the SEC. Dropping football would immediately bring T9 relief. The goals of T9 are most worthy but compliance with T9 requirements is quite costly.

The Elite teams say goodbye to the NCAA. Games are broadcast on the ‘NFL Lite Network.’ There is an NFL style playoff. Players could be elevated and relegated. Good luck to the NCAA if it wants to hold a ‘legitimate’ CBB tourney without these schools.

Football would be an elective major subject; 24/7 access to coaches.

Would Oregon, sponsored by the Las Vegas Raiders, for example, draw like the Ducks do today? Therein lies the rub, no?

Eliminating recruiting in favor of a draft eliminates the chicanery involved with college recruiting. A HS kid who really wanted to attend school X, if he had the potential, could walk-on and if he made the roster, he also would be compensated. In other words, the equivalent of an NFL, undrafted, free agent.

Say goodbye to today’s hypocrisy and say hello to the $ being lost as the result of an every-conference-for-itself scenario.

Who is in from the Pac-12?

Seahawks – UW

49ers – CAL/Stanford

Rams – USC

Broncos – CU

Cardinals – ASU

Chargers/ Raiders – Oregon and most likely Oklahoma and not UCLA?

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Boy Lou,….you know I love you man, but that second to last sentence is troubling to me. This might have to be settled in the courts ultimately…


Professional sports now educates it athletes on what to do with all the money they make. Even when an athlete makes millions it is education which allows them to be successful. Student athletes need to be better informed on the value of the education they are receiving and have that education enhanced.

I think the most important demand these athletes make is the one where they demand a 6 year scholarship. It is the educational opportunity they really need to focus on. Without a proper education professional athletes go broke, without a proper education college athletes go broke. The student athlete needs to be fairly compensated with a valid educational opportunity.

Justin Herbert was able to get a very good education in 4 years. Not every athlete comes to college ready to take advantage of their four years of educational opportunity while competing at D1 football. It is time to enhance the educational opportunity these athletes are given for the time and effort they expend.

I won’t go into the rest of the demands, but they are student athletes and it is time we really focus on the student part of their scholarship. A scholarship is, by definition, payment made to support a student’s education. It is time we emphasize this and ensure each athlete has ample opportunity to learn and graduate to a successful life beyond the sport they are earning that scholarship for.


Oh no, don’t take away my class “basketweaving 101” ?? How would I ever get my degree or stay up with the academic requirements of the NCAA ??

(I like your point Haywarduck)

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

You make an excellent point, and yes….that would cost more and give the football player more benefits, but it would help achieve the objective of “student-athlete” if we really believe in that concept.

I think we get away from the concept of athlete student and really adopt the idea that these are students first. These athletes are getting a benefit, academic, which needs to equate to a good deal.

If athlete students want to attend a college they need to prioritize their education. If they want to be primarily athletes let them go pro, end of story.

They are getting a good deal, but they are being taken advantage of as athletes. Give them a better academic deal and and keep the emphasis on student. Give them 6-7 years to get a degree, if they are in revenue generating athletics and compete for 4 years.

I think we need to get away from being a farm system for the pros. There will certainly be kids who go pro after attending college, but if they don’t want to get an education let them go pro. Stop the charade of the one and done basketball players wanting to play college ball. End the idea that some football players need to play 3 years of college football. If a top athlete want to leave early, they lose their academic benefit. Play 4 years, you have another 3 years of education paid.

Make the education element of the scholarship competitive to going pro. If it doesn’t compete, let them go pro.

Jon Joseph

But, no recruiting, no athletic scholarships, how many fans show up at Autzen and elsewhere.

In my less than note-worthy D3, CFB playing days, we usually had more stray dogs at the games than we did fans. And, to gain admission cost zip.


There will be plenty of recruiting, for student athletes. It is time for colleges to compete for student athletes with what they bring, an education and a college experience.

The college players who want to get 50% of the revenue can try to get into the NFL and get 48%.

Until the charade of college is getting you ready for the NFL is over, the game won’t be the same. I would love to see student athlete’s play basketball, football and let those enabled and even those with the talent go pro.

I want to see more Alan Pages and Roger Staubach’s play four years, get into the NFL and then go onto successful careers. I have no problem with the type of players who don’t value an education learn a hard one. The games will be better for it.

We may be afraid of the tough decision to cut ties with the enabled athletes, but the tough decision is almost always the right decision. Colleges are for students, to teach them skills our society needs. It is secondary to teach them, how to entertain us.

Jon Joseph

Hayward, IMO, the balance of $ earned from a player’s NIL and from any other source if for instance, revenue sharing of some kind is realized, should be placed in trust until such time as an athlete leaves for the pros or otherwise exhausts his/her eligibility.

BTW – 2 NY legislator’s introduced a student-athlete bill of rights bill today. This bill would require revenue sharing.

As I noted above, if the college powers-that-be cannot find a solution, politicians will unfortunately IMO, do so.


After reading from the top of the page down to the bottom and seeing what’s been written I can honestly say I’m at a loss for words.


Well, I always enjoy reading your words DumpsterFire.

Mike West


Jon Joseph

Thank you for the article.

I appreciate and can certainly understand much of your disappointment, in this list of demands. Many do seem to be an extreme overreach; 50% of the revenues from football, for example, that if nothing else, exemplify the maturity level of those making the demands.

As a practical matter, the players have no leverage. If they strike, bye-bye scholarship, next person up. Further, when Northwestern players attempted to form a union a few years back, the NLRB found college athletes not to be employees of the university.

However, you can invoke ‘cancel culture’ but IMO, you cannot let the adults off the hook. Look around and what do these kids see? A ridiculously overpaid conference commissioner; administrators at any number of levels, making money off of their efforts; coaches being paid multi-millions of dollars; their sweat providing 75% of the capital required to pay for every other sport (with the exception of men’s basketball) as mandated by Congress and otherwise.

And the scholarship agreement they signed? It not only trades their physical efforts for tuition, but takes away their individual rights to capitalize from said effort. By way of comparison, nothing stops a gifted piano player on a ‘regular’ scholarship from playing gigs on the weekend and being paid for her efforts. And when Nick Saban performs one of his virtuoso press conferences, the bottles of Dansani and Coca-Cola are on the podium not just so Nick will have something to wet his thirst.

It’s all well and good and fair, to point out the value of an athletic scholarship. But what for instance, is a member of the golf team doing to earn his scholarship compared to the demands on a college football player. How much is the golfer bringing to the bottom line? And of course, there are many students taking advantage of a full academic scholarship with no extracurricular demands on their time.

I do see approval of athletes benefitting from their own likeness and image as a step in the right direction. But would this have happened without many state legislative bodies pointing a gun at the NCAA’s head? Hell no.

Frankly, I see big time college football and basketball at a crossroads. The pandemic has showed us what a number of us already recognized, college athletic departments are leveraged to the max. Power 5 college football and basketball have been monetized, are national in scope and these sports for the most part, have been sold to media outlets. The College Football Playoff being conducted by ESPN and DR. Pepper and not the NCAA. speaks for itself.

On the other hand, the Ivy league early on decided to protect its student-athletes and cancelled all fall sports. The Ivy League was able to do this because its member schools award no athletic scholarships, the conference has not sold out to media companies, and coaches in the Ivy League are not making millions of dollars a year. The athletes are STUDENT-athletes; with no wink-wink, hypocrisy attached.

So, IMO, either end the charade and move toward a more equitable distribution of the proceeds to the players bringing in the money, the football and basketball players; or, end athletic scholarships.

No one can serve two masters; no one. And ‘kids’ today are far too media savvy and aware, not to understand this and see through the hypocrisy of the adults.


Thanks Jon for the education and great thoughts. I just wasn’t aware that I didn’t know some of what you say. Thanks much.

Jon Joseph

A terrific ponder-point article.

As I see it, the NCAA Emperor has no clothes. It is ‘in business’ to sustain a 19th century model of amateur athletics. At the same time, it manages a basketball tournament that literally brings in billions of dollars that benefits many; except, for the guys playing ball.

IMO, this model in today’s world is unsustainable.


I sure hope so.


I think you encapsulated the whole situation there, Jon. If the NCAA had adjusted with the times, adapted to the changing environment of collegiate sports, WeAreUnited wouldn’t have even been conceived of.

Conferences do whatever they want; , no uniformity of schedules. Just today, Mark Emmert said that the NCAA has no say over whether conferences play football this fall or not, how the Covid 19 testing will be conducted. The College Football Playoffs is a reality show.The irony of the NCAA handing out penalties citing, “lack of institutional control” is without parallel.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

That last line of yours….whew! What a killer; funny and makes me sad at once. So true.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Jon…this is one of the rare few times we disagree, and big-time.

“What does the Golfer bring to the bottom line?” That is the wrong question because the violates the intent of the Athletic Department.

The objective is not to make money for a particular athlete or sport, but make money for the department so that more students can attend college while engaging in their sport. There are so many tangents to this discussion, and I suspect that with a very long off-season…we will have time to pursue them.

Am I rejecting all their demands? No, but whatever additional monies you give to football players–you eliminate other scholarships and sports. Is that fair? Especially when the benefits to the football players are somewhere between one and two million dollars?

Darn….I would like to have been exploited like that when I was young. Play college football and have all those benefits and a no-cost education?

Sign me up.

Good points all. However, what is the ‘intent’ of the athletic department. At the P5 level, the intent is certainly not providing after school recreation for the student body at large. No student who plays touch football with his friends has a locker in the football locker room.

Inter-mural basketball does not take practice time away from Dana Altman’s team.

Rob Mullens earns a heck of a lot more than the man or woman in charge of athletic activities at the local YMCA.

At the P5 level today, the 19th century model of amateur athletics has been turned on its head. College athletes do not walk on from the general student body, they are recruited to play sports and by-the-way, attend school at the University of Oregon. Many of the members of the football team believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are playing CFB as a stepping stone to the NFL. This is not the general belief or attitude, at Ivy league schools and D3 schools.

Across the nation billions of dollars have been invested in lavish athletic facilities. Why? One reason is that athletic departments are not subject to paying tax on income; thus, they spend every dime they have in order to break even. When the COVID stuff hits the fan, this business model is unsustainable. Thus Oregon State, for example, with an athletic department already dripping red ink, has cut the athletic department budget 20%+ across the board. As you know, Stanford ha dropped a number of varsity sports.

P5 football and basketball is big business; most certainly not amateur sport.

Are the performers, the players, being equitably compensated in comparison to the people managing the activities? Certainly, a full scholarship is nothing to be laughed at. But is this sufficient based on the money the players are bringing through the door? Of equal certainty is that 50,000 fans are not going to show up to watch Rob Mullens perform his job duties.

Many of the player ‘demands’ are most definitely off-the-wall. But the issue of equitable compensation is not going away. Many the state legislature’s that have looked at the NCAA’s current model have found it to be outmoded and insufficient when it comes to rewarding the athletes.

BTW, the adult’s mismanagement of the entire Pac-12 was further evidenced today when Mike Gam, the lead talking-head for the Pac-12 Network was terminated. There is no plan to fill this now vacant position.

I reiterate, big time college athletics is at a cross roads. Is it time to officially go NFL and NBA Lite? Draft and pay players? Or, is it time to go D3?

Thanks for your feedback to my comment and I do not disagree with what you said, but I think the entire question has to be made subject to robust debate. If the NCAA and athletic departments do not make concessions to at least, football and basketball players, politicians will do it instead.


Wait, Mike Yam is gone?

Jon Joseph

Yes. More evidence of the dire financial straights the network is in. How can anyone possibly believe that any organization will pay a premium for this network.

Turning down the ESPN offer? Brilliant!

Mike West


One of the best if not Best anchors on the “should have never been a” network.

Bob Rodes

I’m not sure personally that a “more equitable distribution of the proceeds to football and basketball players” is practicable. Why just them, and not all sports? Where do we draw the line? And if we do draw the line, how is it equitable?

Jon Joseph

I would draw the line thus: not revenues, but profits are shared. If the sport you play is not in the black, no money.

Completely gender neutral test for payment. or not.


I don’t know what the right way to give more to football and basketball players, but you can’t base it on the sport making a profit or not. Title IX will not allow female athletes to be treated less than male athletes. That is the the elephant in the room that is not really getting talked about. Title IX is not going away, so colleges had better think of something.


Like I said there is something in-between ending scholarships and paying college students. Make the education a stronger benefit to those who bring in the big money.

How many kids actually turn pro in football? I’ll give you a hint, multiply that number by 50 and you get the number who think they are going pro. It is time to give these kids a reality check. If they want to turn pro let them. If they want a college education and give them 7-8 years of guaranteed education if they compete at their sport for 4 years.

All of the sudden they have a tough choice, and there will be mistakes. That is life and let it play out. One benefit is all of the sudden there will a much bigger emphasis on education for the student athletes at all schools.


Sorry Mind Blown Duck you provided us with a bunch of hooey. I don’t buy it.

It’s like your telling us that just because you have a nice car, in your yard all your neighbors should come over and take care of your yard for you for free, and be very appreciative of the fact your letting them do it for free just because you have a nice car out front.

Or like hiring a person to clean your house and saying that because I have such a nice house for you to clean I’m not going to pay you any money for doing it and you should appreciate that because the house is so nice and expensive and has all these amenities, you should be happy to work here for free. And if you work real hard for free maybe you will be able to get a job later on that will pay you money – see how lucky you are and by the way you need to be more appreciative of me for letting you clean my house for free.

Or telling the slaves that were brought over into the U.S. years ago that they should appreciate the fact that your giving them a job and a place to live for free. “Be more appreciative people” after all, I’m not paying you because I let you live and work here for free.

I think you are missing the point of why the players come to the University of Oregon and It’s not because we have sleeping pods at the Marcus Mariota performance center for them to take a nap between class, practice and meetings.

Sorry Mind Blown Duck, hooey dressed up in a sute and bow tie is still hooey, I don’t buy it.


I’m sorry, but the example you give in your extremely sarcastic tone have absolutely nothing in common with the article. The author provided facts, backed up with reliable and verifiable sources. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it untrue or “hooey”.

The athletes get MILLIONS of dollars worth of benefits at a young age for playing a game. They get to go to a prestigious university that will open new doors for them in the future, doors that would have remained closed had they not attended these schools.

I also have the benifit of tuition-free college. It only took me serving on active duty for 10 years. With the GI Bill, I have the privilege to attend American Public University online. If myself and a former division one athlete have the same degree, applying for the same job, who’s resume looks better? Hint: probably not the one that includes the online school nobody has ever heard of.



I’ve often wondered, if the athletes get MILLIONS of dollars worth of benefits, why are they so broke when they are going to school ??


Do you understand the difference between “benifits” and “cash”? Do you really think every one of these athletes could afford to attend these schools without the scholarships?

Free school, free room and board, free access to everything outlined in the article and you dont see the value of any of it? If you don’t understand, I can’t change your mind.


If a football player had a choice between getting an equitably distributed of the football revenue but paying for his education,


getting the benefits you mention but playing for free, which do you think they would mostly select ??


BDF, thanks again for getting up so early, I was having a hard time figuring out a response as I was reading, and you supplied a perfect template. For a piece that was supposed to tell me how unreasonable, WeAreUnited is, it actually did just the opposite.

“The demands are not only unreasonable, they are also disrespectful” ? Excuse me kettle, this is black.

“One could argue that it would be better to dismiss these unhappy athletes and replace them with others who wear the green and yellow with honor and pride.” I’m sorry, but who is being disrespectful? Then the piece is wrapped up with the classic, “If you don’t like it, leave!”

One of the statements that really flipped my bill was the idea that how dare the players test the NFL waters and if it’s not to their liking, they can come back! And they also want, “unrestricted free speech rights”!

Mind Blown Duck, though against the idea of the players having the right to express their feelings, obviously is welcome to convey its thoughts on the matter. It provided a window to view the issue I would not have had otherwise, so thanks for that.


Great points 30Duck.

Jon Joseph

In general BDF, I agree. Change ‘slaves’ to ‘indentured servants’ and you have defined the ramifications of today’s big time college football scholarship.

The trappings are spectacular, but the share of the money being brought in comes nowhere close to being equitably distributed,

Mike West

This discussion is great.
While I mostly agree with Mind Blown Duck, I believe the students have some valid points. But, they don’t get the gist of amateurism involved at the college level. They ARE getting enormous value, and like the Pro athletes, they seem to forget it is their responsibility to protect their economic interests WHILE PLAYING.

Now in the case of the students, NLI is going to be that avenue. And perhaps they should get a run at some of the money they helped produce from the past. But as I’ve said before, NLI is going to produce some very bitter athletes because the average player is going to recognize the free market really doesn’t value them that much. Sound familiar?

Taking $2M from the coaches and the schools sounds fine (about $20,000 roughly per athlete), but why would the elite athletes agree to getting paid the same as the “scrubs”. In addition, that covers a great deal of the administrative costs of running the program (just ask NFL owners).

The kids want all the benefits of professionalism without the risks.

Let’s say the get them. Should the universities have the right to cut the players for poor performance? After all, players are an investment for the schools, and they don’t have that option now. Should the schools have the option of cutting the kids before camp starts (any year). Believe me, the politics involved and the repercussions thereof will provide opportunities for coaches to cut kids they don’t like personally.

If the players want professional benefits, they should bear the full risks associated with them.

One can argue exploitation. Did my ancestors get the benefit of earning millions of dollars over several decades when they were freed? They certainly had opportunities, but like kids do today? Not even close.

I like what the kids did. Some issues they brought up are awesome. But getting professional treatment while keeping the benefits of amateurism doesn’t fly with me. All, or nothing. Life is about risk. You don’t get to live in a bubble while everyone else faces risk.

One more thing…students PAY to go to the PAC12 schools. The athletes get that education for the privilege of playing. Let’s not forget that.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Another champion-post Mike.

The NLI is really going to open a can of worms as you note. The running back who is making a fortune off his likeness while at college, as the average-talent tight ends and three-star linemen blocking for him feel they are owed a bit of that revenue.

What a way to ruin a locker room…


Jon, I believe that to be an overstatement and misunderstanding of the term, “indentured servants”. These athletes are anything but. Indenture requires bonded or contracted services to which the person is bound. There is no bondage involved in college athletics. They are not indentured in any way. They are free to go anywhere at anytime they want…other than the NCAA one year transfer clause in the major sports. And THAT I disagree with. But as stated…athletes don’t have to agree to that. They CHOOSE to because that is the current nature of the sport.

And lastly, there are limits on all things in all endeavors. To ask for more is not a negative thing. But let’s not demonize or punish one group for the benefit of another.

Jon Joseph

That is a pretty big ‘BUT’ my friend. They are committed to a school and unlike regular students, cannot transfer without paying a penalty,

Meanwhile, the coaches can ‘transfer’ at will.


Jon, as I stated, I do not agree with that major sports transfer rule. (It does not apply to most collegiate sports.) I also believe that the rule will be changed within the next year or two.

Still, my argument stands…they are not indentured. Your belief that because of the rule, they are bonded. I pose that in every sport, conditions are such that athletes MUST abide by the rules. What if an athlete doesn’t like the shape of the football? His hands are too small to grasp the thing. Is that “indentured”?

Athletes volunteer for their participation and accept the rules of the game.

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

I gotta mark this day on the calendar as extremely rare as I disagree with both you and Jon Joseph on the same day? Say it isn’t so!

I would agree with Timbo that your tone is a little over-the-top, but I can also see how the author could be viewed the same way.

Comparing slavery to nearly two million dollars of benefits does not compute for me at all.


…and it got me to finally join. ;-)

Charles Fischer, Mr. FishDuck

Mudslide….I don’t what I like better; your handle or your avatar! Yosemite Sam was such a favorite growing up…

Please keep giving us your thoughts and WELCOME!


I agree with Charles that I disagree with both JJ, BDF and the writer on some counts, which shows how complex this issue really is when 3 competent posters have different angles to take…

One thing is, I refuse to “mis-hear” tone in a typed or texted response. I have never seen BDF disrespectful on this board and I would give him the benefit of the doubt, since – by site reputation alone – he has earned it.


Mike West


I gotta hand it’s to you. Your comment hits a note on the tone of the article.It can come across as arrogant. I do like your response though I disagree with it because I believe the players should voice their opinions. And after all, it’s all about negotiating wouldn’t you say?


Yea, my comment may have been at the upper limit of things (as Charles explained to me) but I have such strong feelings about the people with the gold keeping as many of those that don’t have it down under thumb and telling them they should be happy with it. Everything they do gets justified regardless of its right or wrong and that is how the article came across to me.

If I had the ability to change a few words I would, but I don’t. For example Jon mentioned that the word slave could be replaced with “indentured servants”. That would have been a better choice of words and would tone it down a little.

Mike West

You know, looking at my comment to you, I misquoted. I meant to say your comment points out the article, not your comment. That’s why your comment was important. It was a good response because it is so easy to think of oneself as justified (universally speaking here).

I agree with the content of the article. Your response put it in a perspective that it seems arrogant. That was an appropriate response, because it instantly balanced the issue at hand. And everyone piled in.

I’m so glad your lead off, because you really get things going. And you hit a homer this time. You empowered lots here to speak their mind, and you activated a discussion people should be talking about.

Again, “the conversation was just getting started”.

“Help me, help you”…

Keep it up buddy. You’re invaluable to this site.


Thanks Mike


We are so scared to ay anything these days….. by evening mentioning the world slave that makes you a bad person??? WHAT? Remember do not ever say, “master bedroom”, when referring to a room in a house, it is to be called, “owner’s room”. ???? What is happening ?


Deep wounds take exceptional healing efforts.


I find it informative that the athletes begrudge the salary greed of coaches, administrators, and league officials, yet look to have a big chunk of that greed directed back to themselves. I guess that’s today’s version of a free market economy. But so is saying “I’m not going to buy the product.”

I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Thanks, Mind Blown Duck.


Yep, it takes on a whole different meaning when those that don’t have something jump up and then all of a sudden say “I want some to”. Of course those that do have it will come back and say “no, no you can’t have any, it’s just for us” and justify it anyway they can.


I trust you read the article … what the athletes receive is not in the “don’t have something” category. Far, far from it.


Cash in the pocket for their efforts. All the cash goes into other peoples pockets and not the players.