Do you believe Drake May was offered $5 million?

GT98 said:
Zero comparison for the NBA or MLB to the NFL fresh out of HS. Rare that the player for the NBA was ready. They physicality of the NFL is quite different. No 18 year old is going to survived getting bashed by a 23-27 year old that is physically more mature in his athletic prime.

Why would the NFL incur this cost of training a kid for a few years when colleges do this for free?

There is nothing about the current Div. 1 (FBS if you will) of collegiate athletics in football or basketball that is amateur athletics.
Click to expand...

Easy. They're cheaper on the practice squad. They're younger so they have more years to play professionally. They're going to develop faster as a full-time professional than they will at the collegiate level. Think about how many busts you get on the draft because a kid doesn't want to be a full-time student of football... compare that to your own ability to weed those out with a few years on a dedicated feeder team and how much cheaper it is to whittle it down yourself.

Will many kids be ready right out of hs? No... few will be at least in the NFL. Look at how many go pro even as udfas or to CFL. It'll be a small percentage. But the point is that by opening it up early, those who only care about cash now will go pro now. Or they'll do 1-2 years and be done. But why would a kicker need to do 5 years of college ball?
 
QuadF said:
Or it rebounds because that's a figure so far beyond what can be sustained. NCAA needs to let people go pro immediately. It fixes the whole thing.
Click to expand...

The NCAA isn't in control of whether people are allowed to go pro, the NFL is. The NFL has a rule that you must have been out of high school for a minimum of three years before you can join. Maurice Clarett challenged this rule in court to try to go pro early and the NFL won.

I don't see the NFL changing this requirement. Why would they? College football is the perfect setup for them -- it's essentially a developmental league that gives them a ton of free marketing and they don't have to spend a dime to run it.

The NFL doesn't really care about getting an extra year or two out of players when they're younger. They already have an insanely popular product with a bunch of marketable stars. Plus, a rookie coming in after a famous college career generates tremendous hype and attention for them. The NFL draft is a huge money maker largely because all of the players are known from college and have tons of tape and stats to discuss.
 
QuadF said:
Easy. They're cheaper on the practice squad. They're younger so they have more years to play professionally. They're going to develop faster as a full-time professional than they will at the collegiate level. Think about how many busts you get on the draft because a kid doesn't want to be a full-time student of football... compare that to your own ability to weed those out with a few years on a dedicated feeder team and how much cheaper it is to whittle it down yourself.
Click to expand...

College currently weeds out the vast majority of HSers who have talent but aren't willing to put out the work. It's very rare for a college player to be talented enough that they can get by without being hard workers who devote their lives to the game. I'm sure it happens, but I'd say it happens a lot less than it does in high school.

Doing the work to evaluate thousands of high schoolers, drafting hundreds of them into the feeder league, and spending a few years coaching them and putting on games to see if they have the potential to go to the main league would be much more expensive than letting colleges do all of that. Any money you save on not drafting a bust would surely be offset by those costs. Not to mention the you'd be giving up the huge amount of hype college careers generate for incoming NFL rookies.

Also, overall player costs are fixed in the NFL so there would be zero money actually saved on the balance sheet, and rookie contracts are already locked in at relatively small costs. It would just be a huge additional cost for zero financial gain.
 
I think at this point we have no idea what is sustainable.
[/QUOTE]
It is an indication of how much cash is out there. Seventy per cent of P5 head coaches make $3 million per year. Our present staff, having never coached a game, is getting about $8 million. The previous coach who proved to be abysmal, gets fired and walks out with $11 million. Wait till middle school players figure out NIL.
 
andrew said:
College currently weeds out the vast majority of HSers who have talent but aren't willing to put out the work. It's very rare for a college player to be talented enough that they can get by without being hard workers who devote their lives to the game. I'm sure it happens, but I'd say it happens a lot less than it does in high school.

Doing the work to evaluate thousands of high schoolers, drafting hundreds of them into the feeder league, and spending a few years coaching them and putting on games to see if they have the potential to go to the main league would be much more expensive than letting colleges do all of that. Any money you save on not drafting a bust would surely be offset by those costs. Not to mention the you'd be giving up the huge amount of hype college careers generate for incoming NFL rookies.

Also, overall player costs are fixed in the NFL so there would be zero money actually saved on the balance sheet, and rookie contracts are already locked in at relatively small costs. It would just be a huge additional cost for zero financial gain.
Click to expand...

You've been putting my thoughts into words throughout this thread. There should be textbooks written about the artfulness with which the NFL has scammed the college football world.
 
Yes. We will not be able to play in the same sandbox, but to some degree, that was already true.
 
Seems @ThisIsAtlanta is right about the amounts of NIL money, and good luck having a legal case that can differentiate between NIL money that is really pay for play from true NIL money. That seems like a very hard case to make if the people scheming have any common sense.

Fundamentally, if people highly value CFB and want the best players, they will spend money on them. If there are people willing to spend money on them, there is not a long-term legal way to stop it. I personally would prefer the whole system crash and the money stop flowing. I would love to have less games on TV with its awful disruptions, etc.

Where I think there could legally be changes-
1. Limit transfers as they used to be limited. Make enrolling in a school a real commitment. This will indirectly impact NIL deals that try to lure transfers (like the subject of this thread) and limit how much boosters will pay past getting the player to sign.
2. Put a cap on the amount of money a school can spend on CFB, between facilities, coaches salaries, scholarships, etc. I think Title IX will have an impact this anyway, but the schools certainly could agree to do it.
3. Lower even further the total number of scholarship players you can have. This will spread around the talent (and perhaps parity) even more.

As others have pointed out, there is no way to know all the unintended consequences of the status quo or any potential fixes, so maybe these ideas are terrible. Who really knows?
 
coit said:
Everyone knows it. He isn’t the only one. Maybe just the one with balls big enough to speak up.
Click to expand...
If he had big balls he and Mack Brown would be naming names when they speak up. They're not going to change things this way. It's like KQ saying, 'Oooohhhh, I know something you don't know. Just wait and you'll find out.'
 
GTLiebs said:
I think at this point we have no idea what is sustainable.
Click to expand...
Colleges are willing to spend $200mm+ to upgrade a locker with the sole intention of possibly being the nudge star recruits need to come to their colleges.

Now, assuming a 30 year payout period, it sounds like they’re willing to pay about $7mm/yr solely as a nudge. To actually bring players into the fold will probably be some multiple of that.

I suspect the market for player payments will be somewhere between $10-$20mm/year/team at least.
 
QuadF said:
Or it rebounds because that's a figure so far beyond what can be sustained. NCAA needs to let people go pro immediately. It fixes the whole thing.
Click to expand...
That’s not the NCAA. That’s the NFL players Union.
 
clapper said:
If he had big balls he and Mack Brown would be naming names when they speak up. They're not going to change things this way. It's like KQ saying, 'Oooohhhh, I know something you don't know. Just wait and you'll find out.'
Click to expand...
Maye has now publicly stated that this story is not true. I don’t know why Narduzzi would toss this story out there unless there was something in it for himself.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
Maye has now publicly stated that this story is not true. I don’t know why Narduzzi would toss this story out there unless there was something in it for himself.
Click to expand...
Why Narduzzi would put it out there? Maye's own HC, Mack Brown said it first. Narduzzi was only backing him up.
 
clapper said:
Why Narduzzi would put it out there? Maye's own HC, Mack Brown said it first. Narduzzi was only backing him up.
Click to expand...
I thought Mack Brown just said Maye had been offered large amounts to leave and then Narduzzi was the one who came up with the 5 million amount. Also why would Maye deny this? If anything it makes Maye look like a very loyal Tarheel.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
I thought Mack Brown just said Maye had been offered large amounts to leave and then Narduzzi was the one who came up with the 5 million amount. Also why would Maye deny this? If anything it makes Maye look like a very loyal Tarheel.
Click to expand...

I think Maye said he wouldn’t play for Pitt if they gave him $5 million. Just a misunderstanding.
 
DEF3753B-973C-4728-A65F-D6569F4ACA12.jpeg

Not offered 5 million, confirmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top