I promised it more than a week ago, and here it is from 2/12/07:

HEADLINE: Pay for play? Get real
Byline: Doug Smock
I am amused by the occasional call from some pundits for universities to begin paying their football players. They tend to fire up the most at the end of each season, when people need a change of pace from grousing about the BCS.

Morally, the arguments aren’t bad when you consider head coaching salaries hitting the $4 million per year mark. And we won’t even go into the facilities arms race, which is delving into some staggering construction price tags.

When you apply the concept realistically, it collapses like the ’85 Cubs.

Sure, Tennessee could afford to give its football players, say, a $50 per week stipend. Based on 85 scholarship players paid over 40 weeks, the UT program, aka the Knoxville Mint, could part with $170,000.

There are two piddly little problems here. One, not every program is as loaded as Tennessee. Very few are.

Second, if you think college programs could begin a payment program and limit it to their football team, you have a future in stand-up comedy. An attorney with the faintest knowledge of Title IX would have other ideas. Eventually, you’d pay every scholarship athlete in your program, and maybe your walk-ons to boot.

I would say about 100 of the 119 programs daring to play Division I-A football wouldn’t want to open that Pandora’s box.

Please, please, forget this issue. Awarding free tuition, books, housing, meals, easy access to tutoring and possible celebrity status doesn’t fit my definition of exploitation.

Not to worry. With the NCAA bending over backwards to reinforce the concept of amateurism, imperfect as it may be, the pay-for-play faction isn’t getting much traction.

[end column]

For next Monday, I might poke a little fun at all the BCS schools who are scheduling *two* FCS opponents this fall.