US college football, at least at its highest level, has deteriorated into a money-making mess.
Athletes in all sports are now permitted to make money while playing inter-collegiate games.
Thanks to many US states allowing a thing called NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) Rights, college performers may now receive financial remuneration for endorsements, personal appearances and autograph signings, etc.
Long gone is the idealistic notion of a kid going to a college or university and playing the gridiron sport in return for a free education and a chance at a better life that a pricey degree affords them.
But this isn't the first time college football has sunk to such a money-grubbing, murky level.
Way back in the 1920s when college football was just becoming immensely popular and fans were packing huge stadiums -- before games were televised and the NFL existed -- many schools just went out and hired young men to play for them.
Reportedly, cash passed between hands freely back then.
Supposedly, many times the players didn't even have to attend classes at the institution of higher learning they represented.
With NIL, it seems big time college football has come full circle and is once again a cash cow for players.
The argument had persisted for many years that college athletes should be paid a stipend to live off of in addition to the loot they receive for their education.
This always smacked of unnecessary greed to Wiggins' World.
In many cases these days, a college education is worth US$60-70 thousand dollars a year -- or more.
Many regular students and their families would love to have that financial burden lifted off them.
Somehow, there are those who feel that athletes are entitled to more than just the cost of education often needed to achieve a prosperous life.
Call WW naive or idealistic if you wish, but we disagree. Four or more years of a free, valuable education should be enough.
Two of the more famous coaches in college ball got into a spat this past summer over the paying of athletes.
Alabama coach Nick Saban (seven national titles, six at Bama) whined that Texas A&M, under coach Jimbo Fisher, had paid for every single one of their recruits (supposedly by dreaming of ways to get cash to the kids who signed with them).
Outraged, Jimbo fired back at Saban, stating that A&M had not done anything illegal. Under the loose NIL guidelines, he's probably right.
Nowadays it's perfectly OK to be out in the open about money being given to players, as opposed to the old way: boosters making under the table payments to them.
To add to the NIL situation, we have today's loosened transfer rules. In essence, they create free agency for players.
Formerly, a ballplayer had to sit out an entire year if he/she switched to another school.
Now athletes are eligible immediately after changing schools. Some end up transferring three or four times.
The new transfer rules only add to the sinister cauldron of subterfuge and confusion that NCAA football finds itself mired in.
Now Wiggins' World is not completely opposed to this transfer rule change. If a player has a better chance of hitting the field at another school, why not transfer.
God bless him/her, we say. WW has seen too many fine ballers rot on the vine (or bench, in this case) when they could be playing someplace else.
But it also makes one wonder about the commitment players make these days to the school they sign with. Do players have the right to be rationally selfish in this situation?
There are now so many transfers that the make-up of teams changes much more drastically yearly.
And even more money-driven changes are in the works.
Traditional powers Oklahoma and Texas will soon bolt the Big 12 for the greener -- as in moolah -- pastures of the more prestigious Southeastern Conference.
USC and UCLA, meanwhile, will jilt the PAC 12 for the Big Ten, which would stand at 16 teams by then and thus be better able to compete with the 16-team SEC for national prominence.
Suffice to say, it is one wicked web college football has woven.
Contact Wiggins' World at davwigg@gmail.com