Something is about to go down in California

DeepSnap said:
the NFL still cares because they know the physical differences in an 18 YO vs 22 YO FB player
Click to expand...
Meaning the NFLPA thinks the difference is minor and hence tries to protect its players from younger competition?

That doesn't seem right to me.
 
GT98 said:
System needs to be burned to the ground and start over. The colleges built what is going on now. When schools are pumping millions upon millions into player lounges and slides (i.e. Clemson) whatever romantic notion of the amateur athlete that many seems to have has been long gone. These kids are already have a (mini) marketing dept w/social media now with the nonsense involved with recruiting. The overwhelming majority of these kids aren't there for any education nor do they care about a degree.
Click to expand...
It gets tiring hearing people talk about colleges spending money wastefully on player luxuries. The colleges don't pump any significant money into player loungers and slides. Donors and fans do. The colleges wouldn't have any of that money if the donors and fans don't give them the money to use for those purposes.
 
18in32 said:
How many 18 year olds are ready to play in the NFL? Like, one guy every five years? Let's not up-end 150 years of amateur sports because of that one guy.
Click to expand...

I would argue it is probably higher than you say although I get and agree with the general premise you are making. The real question is how much does it upend amateur sports to have that guy go pro? This is a question that baseball answered with no real impact to the college game.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
I would argue it is probably higher than you say although I get and agree with the general premise you are making. The real question is how much does it upend amateur sports to have that guy go pro? This is a question that baseball answered with no real impact to the college game.
Click to expand...

It doesnt impact amateur sports at all if that guy goes pro. Let him.

Let him skip college if he can find someone to pay him enough to make it a better deal. The NFL is free to hire or not hire him, or he can find some other way to get paid playing football.

NCAA has nothing to do with that, other than the fact that is going to be the best option for the vast majority of players
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
It doesnt impact amateur sports at all if that guy goes pro. Let him.

Let him skip college if he can find someone to pay him enough to make it a better deal. The NFL is free to hire or not hire him, or he can find some other way to get paid playing football.

NCAA has nothing to do with that, other than the fact that is going to be the best option for the vast majority of players
Click to expand...

Do you mean that college is the best option for most players or that the NCAA is the best option? I’d agree with the former but certainly disagree with the latter.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
I would argue it is probably higher than you say although I get and agree with the general premise you are making. The real question is how much does it upend amateur sports to have that guy go pro? This is a question that baseball answered with no real impact to the college game.
Click to expand...
Oh, I got you. I've got no problem with the NFL hiring people of any age. I don't agree that the NCAA should alter its amateurism rules to accommodate such players, that's all. I don't really see a problem with letting players get drafted then back out – so long as they aren't compensated.
 
As I have told you guys many times before, we don't have college football teams comprised of student athletes anymore, we now have college sponsored professional teams. At least that what the really successful ones (Bama, Clemson, UGay) are.
 
18in32 said:
Meaning the NFLPA thinks the difference is minor and hence tries to protect its players from younger competition?

That doesn't seem right to me.
Click to expand...

Re-read the whole posts. I didn't say "the NFLPA thinks the difference is minor and hence tries to protect its players from younger competition." Both sides of that CBA don't want to kill the golden goose that is their free feeder system. They couldn't care less about the physical differences - those are much more pronounced between 22YO men & 18YO freshmen - but both sides know that. If you need an example, look at the Utah-based teams - BYU, UofU, USU - to see what a physical difference it makes. But if it was to the advantage of the NFLPA membership, NFLPA leadership would do whatever it takes for their members and potential members.

The much smaller NBAPA couldn't care less, especially as fewer and fewer of their membership even went to college more than one or two semesters. The NBA differences arise in maturity & financial issues for the individuals, not size & strength.
 
18in32 said:
It gets tiring hearing people talk about colleges spending money wastefully on player luxuries. The colleges don't pump any significant money into player loungers and slides. Donors and fans do. The colleges wouldn't have any of that money if the donors and fans don't give them the money to use for those purposes.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Some colleges have the ability to rely on donors to fund player luxuries, some of the schools (like GT) take out debt and/or state loans in order to build such places.

Recent-ish article (w/GT mention):

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-athletic-facilities-expenses-20151222-story.html
 
DeepSnap said:
Both sides of that CBA don't want to kill the golden goose that is their free feeder system.
Click to expand...
It is certainly indisputable that in general people look out for their own interests. However, I'm not convinced that if the NFL started drafting 18 year olds, it would destroy college football. They wouldn't draft very many of them.
 
GT98 said:
Not entirely true. Some colleges have the ability to rely on donors to fund player luxuries, some of the schools (like GT) take out debt and/or state loans in order to build such places.

Recent-ish article (w/GT mention):

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-athletic-facilities-expenses-20151222-story.html
Click to expand...
With all due respect... that's not correct. I did read your article, and it points out that (as of 2014), at GT a mere 7% of the athletics budget was covered by student fees. And the loans the athletic associations take out are ultimately repaid by donors and/or fans (in the form of ticket sales, television rights, licensing fees, etc.).

The player lounges with slides are built with 'marginal' dollars – i.e., dollars raised by donors & fans, not from the mandatory allocation of student fees. So if you took all the donor & fan revenue away, and GT supported its athletes solely with the 7% that is from students, you obviously wouldn't have enough money to build player lounges with slides. (You wouldn't have enough money to field any sport, actually – so it is fans & donors who should be complaining that the students are taking advantage of them!) In other words, the player lounges with slides are built with fans & donors dollars, not student fees.

I don't understand why journalists don't understand this. (Could it be they have ulterior motives?)
 
Allen Koholic said:
High schoolers can already go to private schools, which is just fine by me, so long as public funds aren't used to subsidize the school's existence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because the parents of private school students don’t pay the same taxes the public school parents do.

Gtfoh.
 
Kind of obvious that cfb has been approaching a few tipping points that could force change.
- Adoption of professional economic models with new astronomical level inputs (coaching salaries, tv contracts, facilities campaigns).
- Greater demands on SAs to balance athletics and academics at good schools. Academic competition is growing and many if not most of the alums on this board wouldn't get into GT now (no offense).
- Perhaps greater health risks (neurological), although there is an effort to manage this with rules and equipment.
- Moral issue: Growing sense by many (obviously not everyone on this forum) that players are being used.
- Growing competitiveness gap between all-in factories and schools trying to compete the old way.
- Here's a big one: current GT students cannot be counted on to be the next big round of donors to GTAA in 25 years. Kids aren't bought into college football as much now, especially the ones interested in better schools. Who will perpetuate funding all this?

We can speculate where things end up if the current system finally breaks. Will players get paid? I would bet yes. Some argue they are already being paid in the form of a facilities and coaching arms race. How do better schools, not comfortable going all-in, react?
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
Exactly. It isnt the NCAAs fault that there is no money to be made anywhere else playing football short of the NFL or CFL.

The NFL does not want or need 18 and 19 year olds. You could probably count all of the players that were physically ready for the NFL out of high school in the last 30 years on 2 hands, maybe 1. They have no incentive to draft high schoolers when 21 year old professionally trained players pour out of college every year.

The current college system is the best option for an 18 year old football player, by far. A small, small percentage could be drafted after 1 or 2 years, if allowed, but that's not a major issue. They are free to sit out and bang on the NFLs door all they want until they turn 21.

The only way to keep the integrity of CFB as an amatuer sport with an artificially leveled playing field on which 100+ teams can reasonably compete is to not allow teams to pay or buy specific players.

I'd rather lose the 5 guys per team that would actually make any money on their own merit than destroy the college football game that we know and love.
Click to expand...
There are other ways to level the playing field. Limit scholarships to 20/year. Period. Schools will be forced to have long term student athletes to stick around.
 
18in32 said:
How many 18 year olds are ready to play in the NFL? Like, one guy every five years? Let's not up-end 150 years of amateur sports because of that one guy.
Click to expand...

It's not amateur sports though.
  • When games are played is based on TV revenue. TV timeouts make us stand in the heat for revenue.
  • Who gets waivers to play immediately after a transfer depends on who will generate buzz. And thus revenue. (Fields/Martell)
  • Who gets the hammer for cheating depends on how much revenue they generate.
  • If Ohio State has to bench Terelle Pryor for accepting free cars and tattoos (because we are amateurs), which games he sits are determined by whether the next game is a conference title or new year bowl with lots of revenue potential.
  • FCS athletic directors agree to have their amateur players get beat by top power-5 teams every year because the program gets a check for it.
  • The playoff concept was flatly rejected by the NCAA for years, siting concerns about the "student" in "student-athlete", until the BCS gave us an LSU/Bama rematch in the title game that generated comparatively poor revenue. The concerns evaporated overnight and the CFP was promptly implemented, taking the coaches, media and formula out of the equation.
  • In year 1, the committee passed on a more-deserving TCU for Ohio State.
 
Flywheel said:
It's not amateur sports though.
  • When games are played is based on TV revenue. TV timeouts make us stand in the heat for revenue.
  • Who gets waivers to play immediately after a transfer depends on who will generate buzz. And thus revenue. (Fields/Martell)
  • Who gets the hammer for cheating depends on how much revenue they generate.
  • If Ohio State has to bench Terelle Pryor for accepting free cars and tattoos (because we are amateurs), which games he sits are determined by whether the next game is a conference title or new year bowl with lots of revenue potential.
  • FCS athletic directors agree to have their amateur players get beat by top power-5 teams every year because the program gets a check for it.
  • The playoff concept was flatly rejected by the NCAA for years, siting concerns about the "student" in "student-athlete", until the BCS gave us an LSU/Bama rematch in the title game that generated comparatively poor revenue. The concerns evaporated overnight and the CFP was promptly implemented, taking the coaches, media and formula out of the equation.
  • In year 1, the committee passed on a more-deserving TCU for Ohio State.
Click to expand...

Heisman's contract at GT paid him a % of gate revenues.

Not saying you are wrong, but if you are right, CFB has really never been an amateur sport.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
I used to buy into the notion of a 4 year education and its market worth, but I'm not really buying it anymore. If I have the skills to be an engineer at Google, why do I have to take a 4 year unpaid internship first? I could just go to Amazon. But in this world I am blocked from going to Amazon until I serve my 4 year unpaid internship. Yeah, sure I would get some great on the job training, but I also lose 4 years of income for what I'd be worth on the open market.
Click to expand...

This is a good point.

Lots of college education really is pointless and unnecessary for the workforce. Some education is absolutely necessary.

Also, nobody is clamoring for college baseball players to be paid. However, playing in college is increasingly seen as a great alternative to farm leagues (and, I'm guessing, a much better one to the parents of players).
 
Flywheel said:
It's not amateur sports though.
  • When games are played is based on TV revenue. TV timeouts make us stand in the heat for revenue.
  • Who gets waivers to play immediately after a transfer depends on who will generate buzz. And thus revenue. (Fields/Martell)
  • Who gets the hammer for cheating depends on how much revenue they generate.
  • If Ohio State has to bench Terelle Pryor for accepting free cars and tattoos (because we are amateurs), which games he sits are determined by whether the next game is a conference title or new year bowl with lots of revenue potential.
  • FCS athletic directors agree to have their amateur players get beat by top power-5 teams every year because the program gets a check for it.
  • The playoff concept was flatly rejected by the NCAA for years, siting concerns about the "student" in "student-athlete", until the BCS gave us an LSU/Bama rematch in the title game that generated comparatively poor revenue. The concerns evaporated overnight and the CFP was promptly implemented, taking the coaches, media and formula out of the equation.
  • In year 1, the committee passed on a more-deserving TCU for Ohio State.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the NCAA-conspiracy-theorist argument is well known. And lacking evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top