Steve Spurrier: Pay Players?

After writing my last article I realized I needed to elaborate more on this subject.

For a while I was really on the fence about paying players, but as things go on and on and we see more and more issues crop up it becomes obvious; those following the rules are at a disadvantage. Couple that with the fact that the NCAA has absolutely no way to actually police its own rules and that's a big issue.

Spurrier came out the other day and said he thought that players should be paid $300 per game out of the coaches salary. It's an interesting idea, with an arbitrary number. I absolutely get where he is coming from and agree with the principle of his idea, although I don't think he has the correct answer it is a great place to start.

In my opinion, NCAA President Mark Emmert is asking the wrong question, just like the city of Iowa City is while they go through their 21 only downtown legislation. They are asking the wrong question. The city continues to ask the question "How can we stop underage drinking?" Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating underage drinking, but anyone with any sort of sense realizes you can't do it. If a kid wants to drink they will find a way. The question the city should be asking is "How can we keep our students safe?" What this ordinance has done is it has taken kids away from well lite, downtown Iowa City where they are police-able and sent kids on mile hikes to house parties on dimly lite streets. As a parent that would scare me.

I feel Emmert is in the same boat, he is continuing to ask how the NCAA can make the most money and how players can't be paid and the biggest one, how we can police it. The real question he should be asking is how the playing field can be competitive for everyone. Right now it's not. If you follow the rules you're at a disadvantage.

How to level the playing field? First and foremost Football needs a playoff. without question in my mind that is one huge step towards making things equal. I outlined here my thoughts about that last year. I still think that idea holds a lot of water. Once NCAA has a playoff I think at that point they can logically address paying players. The idea has been thrown around that some players would feel they deserve more then the players that don't play. So then why not do it? Give incentive for players to work harder. Have a base pay system of $100 per game and add in $x per snap a player plays or $y for a start. Additionally, if Emmert is so concerned about smaller schools not having enough money to pay, why can't x% come off the top of playoff (err I mean bowl) revenue, that seems logical and keeps schools on an even ground.

I don't have an answer for the problem, but the NCAA needs to start asking the right questions or things will not get better.