Brand New Transfer Season NIL talk

[cpf2001]

I think whatever you are trying to get at has nothing to do with you being wrong about compensation.

I will add your understanding of what constitutes market forces in a free market economy is wildly inaccurate.

If the existence of someone else willing to give a person more compensation isn't an example of a market force, what on earth is it?

How do you negotiate salaries if you don't look at what competitors are paying and what similarly talented applicants are accepting?

You would be wrong. The top basketball players used to go straight to the NBA and it had no impact on viewership or attendance. The fans support their teams. The players are replaceable. In fact, they get replaced regularly without impact to the revenues.

If you're saying college hoops has the same cultural relevance and prominence today as it did in 1990, I just disagree. And that's money left on the table. Maybe we just run in entirely different circles, but early entry into the NBA changed things dramatically for a lot of basketball fans and reduced the draw to following college hoops.

(Honestly, a lot of the disconnect here probably is just different circles and environments. I'm in no position to judge a claim that a bunch of current UGA and Bama fans in the Southeast would follow less-talented UGA and Alabama teams just as strongly for a long time. But I'm highly skeptical that USC or UCLA could sustain their fanbases like that, especially after the arrival of the Rams and Chargers. And I don't think the portion of the audience that doesn't have a strong connection to any given school but just tunes in to have some Saturday football would keep tuning in either.)

 

[ThatGuy]

If your coach’s compensation goes up by 10x+ over a few decades and yours stays flat, what would you think?

Recognizing I’m late to the party, but if I was in school that long without graduating, I’d think, “Damn, how did I wind up at uGA?”

 

[leatherneckjacket]

If the existence of someone else willing to give a person more compensation isn't an example of a market force, what on earth is it?

How do you negotiate salaries if you don't look at what competitors are paying and what similarly talented applicants are accepting?


If you're saying college hoops has the same cultural relevance and prominence today as it did in 1990, I just disagree. And that's money left on the table. Maybe we just run in entirely different circles, but early entry into the NBA changed things dramatically for a lot of basketball fans and reduced the draw to following college hoops.

(Honestly, a lot of the disconnect here probably is just different circles and environments. I'm in no position to judge a claim that a bunch of current UGA and Bama fans in the Southeast would follow less-talented UGA and Alabama teams just as strongly for a long time. But I'm highly skeptical that USC or UCLA could sustain their fanbases like that, especially after the arrival of the Rams and Chargers. And I don't think the portion of the audience that doesn't have a strong connection to any given school but just tunes in to have some Saturday football would keep tuning in either.)

Kickbacks, bribes, under the table money, and illegal payments that violate contracts are not market forces. That is eevident to anyone who understand basic economics.

If you think your personal experience and the experience of your circle of friends is relevant to the discussion, I am not sure what to tell you other than who cares about what you and your friends think. I used to watch the NBA religiously in the 80's. Today, not so much. But that does not mean that has relativity to the revenues. Regardless, revenues for college basketball are higher than they have ever been.

As long as the players ar Uga and Bama are better than the other college programs, they will not care if the better players bypass college all together.

USC has had to compete with professional teams in LA in the past. It has had and never will have an affect on their revenues.

 

[Root4GT]

People will follow college football like they do baseball and other sports. It will be smaller, like it used to be. There won’t be the money to pay for huge stadiums and salaries .

Define “use to be” for college football. It has been big business for over 75 years.

 

[Eli]

Yup, Yale and Harvard draw great crowds. Fans want both, school and Players. Look at GT’s attendance. Bad coach and bad players and attendance dropped 40%. Play glorified HS football and GT draws 15K per game.

GT adds some NFL caliber studs in the next couple of years with goid coaching we get back a lot of the 40% who gave up.

School do matter. Players do matter.

Ha. Georgia Tech makes more than FSU is worth just in research dollars. Many schools athletic programs operate at a loss it’s why some are unwilling to even give a rats *** about sports. If Georgia Tech had a team of walk ons it wouldn’t change their endowment one cent. Football is not generating school profits like you assume

 

[forensicbuzz]

Not going to argue with you at length but if you took out every professional caliber player you would have the equivilant of womens college basketball vs mens college basketball

Or you would have Ivy League foitball where they average 16K fans and no significant TV contract.

Players matter. College names matter. The combination of both is what makes a billion dollar industry

I tend to agree. If all these players went to a professional development league, the college sports would still be as big a draw. People want their team to win, period. As long as their team is the best, it doesn't matter the caliber of player.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yup, Yale and Harvard draw great crowds. Fans want both, school and Players. Look at GT’s attendance. Bad coach and bad players and attendance dropped 40%. Play glorified HS football and GT draws 15K per game.

GT adds some NFL caliber studs in the next couple of years with goid coaching we get back a lot of the 40% who gave up.

School do matter. Players do matter.

If the top players were the level of Yale and Harvard, tOSU, Alabama, Michigan, ND, etc. fans would be clamoring for these guys. The best available is always the goal.

 

[stinger78]

GA Tech was the toast of the town back in the 50’s and early 60’s. The average lineman back then was about 220 lbs. How many of those guys could play D1 football today, yet there they were playing before a packed house more often than not.

The reason, it’s all relative. Tech was at the top and that’s all that matters. If the best, the ones who want/need to get paid, went straight to the D league, we’d never miss them. The game would carry on at a different level and we would love our team.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

GA Tech was the toast of the town back in the 50’s and early 60’s. The average lineman back then was about 220 lbs. How many of those guys could play D1 football today, yet there they were playing before a packed house more often than not.

The reason, it’s all relative. Tech was at the top and that’s all that matters. If the best, the ones who want/need to get paid, went straight to the D league, we’d never miss them. The game would carry on at a different level and we would love our team.

I still contend that the most “college feeling” college football games I ever experienced were either back in the day, or, more recently, games like Army-Navy or Yale at Harvard.

 

[UgaBlows]

The reason, it’s all relative. Tech was at the top and that’s all that matters. If the best, the ones who want/need to get paid, went straight to the D league, we’d never miss them. The game would carry on at a different level and we would love our team.

Amen! Just give me a team of amateurs athletes from my school to pull for and competition that plays on an equal field with rules that are enforced.

 

[Root4GT]

GA Tech was the toast of the town back in the 50’s and early 60’s. The average lineman back then was about 220 lbs. How many of those guys could play D1 football today, yet there they were playing before a packed house more often than not.

The reason, it’s all relative. Tech was at the top and that’s all that matters. If the best, the ones who want/need to get paid, went straight to the D league, we’d never miss them. The game would carry on at a different level and we would love our team.

Pro football D league. LOL

 

[g0lftime]

I tend to agree. If all these players went to a professional development league, the college sports would still be as big a draw. People want their team to win, period. As long as their team is the best, it doesn't matter the caliber of player.

I once read a comment by a B1G fan (I think it was Ohio State) that the only reason there are colleges in the south is so they can play college football. It was about the time the NCAA was implementing the academic progress requirement. Bennett must have changed majors a few times or they gamed the system somehow fo him. I think it does not penalize a school unless the athlete does not complete the semester.

 

[TechPhi97]

Something like 2000 kids in the portal. A large number of these kids will not find a school and lose their ability to have a college scholarship. The motivation to transfer would make an interesting psychological study. What are the various reasons so many players are transferring. Every game now the announcers mention where the player transferred from when they make a play. Some move to a "better" team like Gibbs. Most don't. I put grad transfers in a different category. They have spent at least 3 years in a program and completed a degree program. CFB is a mess right now for lots of reasons and the ease of transferring is one of the reasons.

2,000 is actually not that big of a number, if you think about it. There are ~77,000 kids playing college football right now (link). That means that "voluntary attrition" is 2.6%. My team is responsible for attrition reporting at my company, and I can tell you if we had a 2.6% voluntary attrition rate we would be pretty excited. Just for reference, the annual estimate of voluntary "quits" from BLS has ranged between 13.2% and 69.6% over the past 5 years, depending on Industry (link). If you look at the Government rates, they are 7.2% - 13.2%.

The portal doesn't count other voluntary turnover from programs but I suspect it captures 90%; the only other way to leave is to just quit. I would count graduating players that don't continue as "involuntary", even if they still have eligibility.

Anyway, this makes the volume in the portal seem exceedingly low either way. It should be below private industry (you can't really be fired) but above government (you don't get the benefits of government employment like a pension). That the annual rate is still ~1/5th of government attrition indicates that these are pretty low rates.

 

[Techster]

Man, I feel bad for Miami. (Spoiler Alert: I actually do not feel bad for Miami at all.)

 

[stinger78]

Two schools whose programs are in an absolute mess.

 

[TechPhi97]

I once read a comment by a B1G fan (I think it was Ohio State) that the only reason there are colleges in the south is so they can play college football. It was about the time the NCAA was implementing the academic progress requirement. Bennett must have changed majors a few times or they gamed the system somehow fo him. I think it does not penalize a school unless the athlete does not complete the semester.

I have a good comeback for that: It seems that the only reason school in the Big Ten have athletics is to enable child abusers. You can then mention Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State. Someone from Ohio State talking about academics for college football doesn't have a leg to stand on. Remember that Maldonado kid that went to OSU then transferred to Maryland - he clearly stated that they just put him into easy to pass classes to keep him eligible with no regard to graduation. I'm sure that was the only player that got that treatment (umm, Maurice Clarett and probably hundreds of others).

 

[roadkill]

2,000 is actually not that big of a number, if you think about it. There are ~77,000 kids playing college football right now (link). That means that "voluntary attrition" is 2.6%. My team is responsible for attrition reporting at my company, and I can tell you if we had a 2.6% voluntary attrition rate we would be pretty excited. Just for reference, the annual estimate of voluntary "quits" from BLS has ranged between 13.2% and 69.6% over the past 5 years, depending on Industry (link). If you look at the Government rates, they are 7.2% - 13.2%.

The portal doesn't count other voluntary turnover from programs but I suspect it captures 90%; the only other way to leave is to just quit. I would count graduating players that don't continue as "involuntary", even if they still have eligibility.

Anyway, this makes the volume in the portal seem exceedingly low either way. It should be below private industry (you can't really be fired) but above government (you don't get the benefits of government employment like a pension). That the annual rate is still ~1/5th of government attrition indicates that these are pretty low rates.

I agree that 2-3 % is not that much, compared to the overall population of S-As. I wonder how it compares to regular students not on scholarship? I know back when GT was a weed-out school, 2-3% would have been astonishingly low. 20-30% would have been believable.

I suspect there is a tendency among many fans to view the granting of a scholarship as a contract with an obligation, and if an S-A leaves before graduation, they broke their agreement. This is simply not true.

 

[Techster]

I have a good comeback for that: It seems that the only reason school in the Big Ten have athletics is to enable child abusers. You can then mention Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State. Someone from Ohio State talking about academics for college football doesn't have a leg to stand on. Remember that Maldonado kid that went to OSU then transferred to Maryland - he clearly stated that they just put him into easy to pass classes to keep him eligible with no regard to graduation. I'm sure that was the only player that got that treatment (umm, Maurice Clarett and probably hundreds of others).

I read Bo Jackson's autobiography decades ago. One thing that stuck out to me is that he said he didn't want his kids attending schools where sports wasn't such a big deal (I read his daughter did end up at Auburn, but didn't play sports there). He wanted them to attend Ivy Leagues or a school like Duke and Stanford. Barry Sanders also said something similar (one of his sons attended Stanford on a football scholarship).

My high school teammate played at Auburn and in the NFL for 3 years. He had good grades and test scores in HS. He tells me repeatedly that he wished he had chosen GT or Duke (he almost went to GT as there was another HS teammate of ours at GT playing LB for us) instead of Auburn because the only thing Auburn coaches and academic advisors wanted him to do is get through class to play football. He never graduated from Auburn as he left after his JR season to enter the draft (drafted in the 4th round by the Titans).

It's kinda sad how some athletes get perspective on sports and the education opportunities they had after their careers are over. I wonder how many athletes would have changed their minds about factory schools if they could do it over again knowing the education opportunities they had at the time. Some do make the most of their education even at "factory" type schools, some do not.

 

[apatriot1776]

I read Bo Jackson's autobiography decades ago. One thing that stuck out to me is that he said he didn't want his kids attending schools where sports wasn't such a big deal (I read his daughter did end up at Auburn, but didn't play sports there). He wanted them to attend Ivy Leagues or a school like Duke and Stanford. Barry Sanders also said something similar (one of his sons attended Stanford on a football scholarship).

My high school teammate played at Auburn and in the NFL for 3 years. He had good grades and test scores in HS. He tells me repeatedly that he wished he had chosen GT or Duke (he almost went to GT as there was another HS teammate of ours at GT playing LB for us) instead of Auburn because the only thing Auburn coaches and academic advisors wanted him to do is get through class to play football. He never graduated from Auburn as he left after his JR season to enter the draft (drafted in the 4th round by the Titans).

It's kinda sad how some athletes get perspective on sports and the education opportunities they had after their careers are over. I wonder how many athletes would have changed their minds about factory schools if they could do it over again knowing the education opportunities they had at the time. Some do make the most of their education even at "factory" type schools, some do not.

It’s tough because these are 17 year olds and they fall for the shortsighted deal every time. I mean I interviewed for the uGA presidential scholarship and part of their pitch was the girls on campus, and I wasn’t even part of the football team lol.

We can promote education opportunities without saying “you’re unlikely to make it big time in the NFL” though. Look at Anthony Carrie, who wants the opportunity to grow his own business - success on and off the field.

 

[g0lftime]

I have a good comeback for that: It seems that the only reason school in the Big Ten have athletics is to enable child abusers. You can then mention Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State. Someone from Ohio State talking about academics for college football doesn't have a leg to stand on. Remember that Maldonado kid that went to OSU then transferred to Maryland - he clearly stated that they just put him into easy to pass classes to keep him eligible with no regard to graduation. I'm sure that was the only player that got that treatment (umm, Maurice Clarett and probably hundreds of others).

More likely the fact B1G was consistently losing to southern schools.