NCAA Players to Get Paid?

 There is a legal case proceeding where some folks think that NCAA players (mostly starting out in football) will force the issue of salaries.  What kind of salaries?  Unknown, and not likely to be discussed.

So, lets be honest here and admit up front....across the nation....there's probably only 35 college (more or less) that make the income from attendance, merchandise and tv contracts....that they could pay some type of salary.

Ole Miss, as an example...pulls in around $17-million a year, from it's entire sports department.

The University of Texas makes around 40-odd million off football ticket revenue.

University of Alabama?  It makes around 33-odd million off their football program.

So if this case goes to the bottom line....just what kind of salary would be paid out for your average player? 

My humble guess is that teams would sit down and have a 'pyramid-type' system where three to five players would be able to pull in $60,000 per season and the bottom ten players (mostly reserve players) would never make more than $5,000 a season (figure $15 an hour for practice and playing time).

Freshmen getting next to nothing?  It might go that way.

Would you have some teams offering Corvettes to players who decline the pay-scale?  You might have cases like that.

But there's this one problem.  After you wrap up the 35-odd teams at the top level....most all other teams would not be able to pay more than $3,000 per player, and there would be this huge 'fairness' issue brewing for the NCAA.  

I suspect in a matter of four years...you'd have a large segment of players trying to unionize, and suddenly Saturday football games would be hit with strikes.  The whole system would collapse in a matter of just one season.  

So I think the end of the tunnel is emerging and you will see a spiral starting up shortly.  

The Problem with News

 Joe Rogan gave an interview in the past couple of days, and talked about spiraling trend of CNN, and in particular....Brian Stelter.

Over the past three years, I've probably watched twenty-odd clips of Stelter in action....some of three minutes....some going up to half-an-hour.  The general problem that Stelter has (same way for most all of CNN's team)....they take a story which has six facts which could be discussed for about six minutes.....but instead turn the entire show (45 minutes if you cut commercial time out), and you stand there at the conclusion....feeling a bit dazed that six facts took 45 minutes to lay out.  

Adding onto this....you end up with four people at the table, coming on the show at various times....acting as experts, and you feel like one single person could have told this story in simplicity.

You see this at a lesser degree with MSNBC and Fox....maybe half as much. They usually lay out the six facts....have one single expert appear, and maybe dwell on this for around fifteen minutes. 

Stelter excels at this 'game' more than anyone else.  

Rogan's criticism?  He's correct....people are flipping from commercial news....to YouTube 'channels' like Rogan.  Rogan has become a modern-day Larry King....asking both smart and stupid questions.  Rogan lets you know ahead of time....he's always a bit skeptical and doesn't necessarily buy into half of the news that we hear on a daily basis.

The fact that Rogan's show outdraws Stelter's show now?  If you had said something like this a decade ago....folks would have laughed. 

Should CNN let Shelter go?  Well...if you did....what would replace him?  The same crap?