[Buffalo Nickle]

Come on now, you are giving yourself way too much credit. All of your arguments are emotional. There is not one single thread of economics in it. Even the NCAA acknowledges that scholarships are compensation. They even use the word and point out that some of this compensation amounts to very high figures. The total package is up around $100,000 per year. Why is it, you think that compensation is OK but paying a guy $5,000 extra is outrageous. What the real difference between $85,000 in compensation and $80,000?

And why shouldn't a state school like Texas State be able to cut a check for the difference to the player to even things out and compete with USC? You can't answer that question economically. Clearly, they ought to be able to do. The reason they can't is the NCAA has said one type of compensation is good and the other is bad. And you accept their position.

The Texas Longhorns are clearly a more profitable business than the 1967 Green Bay Packers. Why are the Texas Longhorns players amateurs and the Packers pros? You can't make a rational argument for that.

Once you pay a player, he is a pro. College players are being paid. The NCAA just looks past that so they can get all the rest. Everything after that is arbitrary. And all the excuses that people make are emotional because they identify with the present system. I always find it strange that fans always side with ownership. It's because they begrudge the amount players make but they don't give a damn if the owner make 100s of millions.

It's all pure emotion.