Do academics mean anything anymore at college

[g0lftime]

current UGA backup QB Jaden Rashada is suing FL HC Billy Napier, Fl booster Hugh Hathcock and former FL staffer Marcus Castro-Walker for reneging on a $13.95M NIL contract.

Georgia QB Jaden Rashada sues Florida coach Billy Napier, among others, over botched $13.85M NIL deal

Also named in the bombshell suit are a former Gators football staffer as well as a prominent booster

www.cbssports.com

If you are going to offer kids money, you better be willing to pay up.

Or have some good lawyers.

 

[ThatGuy]

Or have some good lawyers.

18 year-old kids might also learn the value of the phrase, "Get it in writing."

 

[GoldZ]

But that was happening anyway under the old system. Sure, transfers weren’t as common but they happened especially if you simply mentioned a sick grandma or said a fan called you a mean name. See: Cam Newton. You think guys like Garrison Hearst or Moreno gave a rats care about school? And UGA paid them handsomely just like Auburn paid Cam. College football has been a professional minor league for the top 15 or so teams for at least 30 years even though Herschel’s camaro was 44 years ago. That’s why schools like GT dropped levels. Even Notre Dame has fallen because they tried to stay pure while the redneck schools paid non college players to play.

I get a lot of fans are finally waking up and seeing what this sport is. Welcome to the party of watching your team lose because it’s not a fair fight. Imagine being me and seeing it 30 plus years ago. Every time we lost to UGA it wasn’t because we were a worse program, it was because we didn’t pay illiterate players to win. Imagine what George O’Leary could have done with paid players. I sure wish we had been paying because decades of losing and having it rubbed in your face stinks. At least now we can compete if we simply choose to pay. If fans want to leave because they’ve finally woken up then fine. I like the sport to much to leave.

Exaggerating the past problems as well as the current positives of the new cFB, give you imo an unbalanced view. The passage of the outright pay for play system this week will end a beautiful game called COLLEGE football. Relativity is important. Old system with pimples >>> new system with cancer. If the old system vs new system was a football game, it would be old-42 and new-10.
Btw, GOL did just fine against uga in spite of said pimples.

 

[GoldZ]

18 year-old kids might also learn the value of the phrase, "Get it in writing."

Theyneedbetterparents.

 

[slugboy]

I never mentioned dollars, only referred to ratings.

Georgia Tech is does not crack the Top 30 programs in the country in terms of viewership, nor does it crack the 2M mark. So, that means, by definition ... they are not in the Majority of most watched programs which means they must be in the Minority. Or use Superior vs. Inferior, or Most Watched vs Less Watched. Comparisons and contrasts are simply that.

If you want to see the full viewership ratings by team and by conference, I will get it and show it. But I don't have any problem stating that by comparison, GT's viewership is niche compared to the Top 30. And that is also true if we are talking Vandy ... their viewership is insignificant to the viewership of the SEC.

Again ... it is just math. If you want to use another adjective, go for it.

I’m not sure how good the numbers in this are—we’re #54, way behind Duke (33) and Louisville (31). FSU is #7, ahead of Notre Dame.

Colorado was huge at #4 and 4.5 million viewers per game. UGA had 3.95 million. We had 766k.

Clemson had 1.7 million viewers at #22. Miami is #32 at 1.33 million.

A bar chart would be interesting.

 

[Vespidae]

I’m not sure how good the numbers in this are—we’re #54, way behind Duke (33) and Louisville (31). FSU is #7, ahead of Notre Dame.

Colorado was huge at #4 and 4.5 million viewers per game. UGA had 3.95 million. We had 766k.

Clemson had 1.7 million viewers at #22. Miami is #32 at 1.33 million.

A bar chart would be interesting.

Those numbers don't distinguish between Nielsen rated viewers and non-Nielsen. Nielsen rated gets more ad revenue that non-Nielsen. For example, in 2023 ... Alabama appeared in 11 of 13 games on Nielsen rated networks. Tech, as I recall, appeared on one.

The ACCN is not Nielsen rated. ESPN is.

 

[slugboy]

Those numbers don't distinguish between Nielsen rated viewers and non-Nielsen. Nielsen rated gets more ad revenue that non-Nielsen. For example, in 2023 ... Alabama appeared in 11 of 13 games on Nielsen rated networks. Tech, as I recall, appeared on one.

The ACCN is not Nielsen rated. ESPN is.

You didn’t buy a spurtle or a tac shaver?

Yeah, we know what the ads were like when it wasn’t a marquee opponent.

We had 2 ABC games (UGA and Clemson), one ESPN game, and two CW games. That should be 5 Nielsen games. That’s also weak coverage. The Miami game, which was a great game, was on the ACCN, and it was there because we had losing records for the previous four seasons. If we had been interesting before that, Miami vs a good team would get a good slot.

Clearly that’s not in Bama’s league. More importantly, it’s not up with Arkansas or other mid-range teams.

I don’t think that it’s that important to distinguish viewership—a game that gets < 500k viewers, like Bowling Green or BC, tells the advertising story well enough. That game won’t be on ABC

 

[roadkill]

I’m not sure how good the numbers in this are—we’re #54, way behind Duke (33) and Louisville (31). FSU is #7, ahead of Notre Dame.

Colorado was huge at #4 and 4.5 million viewers per game. UGA had 3.95 million. We had 766k.

Clemson had 1.7 million viewers at #22. Miami is #32 at 1.33 million.

A bar chart would be interesting.

I take this listing with a grain of salt. Probably directionally correct, but the methodology of counting only Nielsen-rated games and giving non-rated games a "0" skews the data. The fact that Duke is #33 is telling. If you only sum the rated games but use total games as the denominator, then the number of rated games takes on an outsized influence.

 

[stinger78]

I take this listing with a grain of salt. Probably directionally correct, but the methodology of counting only Nielsen-rated games and giving non-rated games a "0" skews the data. The fact that Duke is #33 is telling. If you only sum the rated games but use total games as the denominator, then the number of rated games takes on an outsized influence.

Yes. Flawed study. Only taking the highest rated games.

 

[gte447f]

I take this listing with a grain of salt. Probably directionally correct, but the methodology of counting only Nielsen-rated games and giving non-rated games a "0" skews the data. The fact that Duke is #33 is telling. If you only sum the rated games but use total games as the denominator, then the number of rated games takes on an outsized influence.

Thanks. I haven’t looked at the data, but your explanation helps explain how the heck Duke could be ranked so high… maybe.

 

[slugboy]

Thanks. I haven’t looked at the data, but your explanation helps explain how the heck Duke could be ranked so high… maybe.

They played Notre Dame, Clemson, and FSU last year, with a winning record when they played. They had better exposure than we did.