There are a lot of strong opinions about the Northwestern union case. We've answered questions in the Friday mailbag the past two weeks about the complicated issues at stake -- here and here -- and those responses have inspired more than a few responses from you. So fairly animated ones, too.

Some think the players are over-entitled and should be satisfied with a scholarship. Some seem to hate unions in general. Some are inspired by the players standing up for themselves and organizing. Some think players should get a stipend and more protections and benefits, but are leery of them unionizing. Others just think college football is hopelessly broken.

So let's quantify what Pac-12 blog readers think.

Where do you stand?

Do you believe a scholarship worth between $35,000 and $60,000 dollars is enough of a benefit for college athletes? Parents who are paying tuition or former students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt based on student loans might think so.

Or do you think a union is the most efficient way for players to organize and make demands -- demands that are fair because coaches, athletic directors and administrators have become wealthy based on a multibillion dollar business that is rigged so it doesn't have to pay its workers market value?

Or do you believe players deserve more -- a stipend, better health care, perhaps a way to make money on the value of their own marketability, etc. -- but that a union might end up provoking a hornets' nest of unintended consequences, which might in fact threaten college sports in this country.

It's certainly not an easy issue. Reasonable people defend each position.

Where do you stand?