Expansion Talk 2021

[Pointer]

I understand. My point is that colleges have quotas for virtually every conceivable category of student (I was on the President’s cabinet at a small college, so trust me). Yet when it comes to college football we want to “draft” as many semi-pros as possible and then say it’s all about not limiting college admission (and having our cake and eating it too). Even med schools tell students “we’ve met our quota for OBGYN this year but you could enter our gerontology program.”

I guess my frustration, whether my idea is totally stupid or not, is that half the time we act like connection to the learning environment is paramount and other times we say it’s really about money and winning. As the college landscape transitions away from amateurism it might be time to try one more time to “balance” entering classes of football players the way we balance classes for all other students.

Although I don't know if I agree with it or not, you make a good point.

Definitely agree with the bolded part though. I think the academic paramount part went out the window with the current staff (not meant as a dig necessarily, it's just the nature of it if you're plan is to out recruit).

 

[4shotB]

I think the academic paramount part went out the window with the current staff (not meant as a dig necessarily, it's just the nature of it if you're plan is to out recruit).

I am very curious - what has happened that makes you think that?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

OK. Which schools/teams would be in this parity group? Just the P5 conferences? Or, would you include G5 teams as well? Would Bama agree to any parity plan that allowed UAB to have an equal shot at a 5* player at a Birmingham high school? I doubt it.

I understand and you are correct. Again, this is a thought experiment, but imagine if we treated “pre-professional” football players kind of like the way professional schools operate. In medicine, law and theology there are quotas set. In medicine especially this is a nationally imposed quota. But all professional schools to some extent limit the number of students in a particular area.

So, yes, Alabama would balk at it, but that is why there still might be a place for a governing body like the NCAA. Alabama’s med school “gets told” all the time they can’t except this or that outstanding student because slots for particular fields in medicine are allocated nationally and Alabama has used up their quota.

 

[orientalnc]

I think the academic paramount part went out the window with the current staff (not meant as a dig necessarily, it's just the nature of it if you're plan is to out recruit).

This is a serious accusation that needs some support. What is the basis for this?

 

[Pointer]

I am very curious - what has happened that makes you think that?

I knew that would press someone's button, which is not what I intended.

I'm not sure how often the current staff stops and thinks if the players they are offering are good academic fits in addition to athletic (not saying they will be straight a students, but can they make it here period). That's not to say it's not important to them, I'm sure it is.

But by all accounts and messages and information put out by the current staff, star ranking, and attention to the program is number one priority.

Again, let me say, that doesn't mean academics don't matter (maybe shouldn't have used the words "out the window", think of it as a hyperbole if you will), but it is a much distant second in importance when it comes to prospects.

 

[orientalnc]

I understand and you are correct. Again, this is a thought experiment, but imagine if we treated “pre-professional” football players kind of like the way professional schools operate. In medicine, law and theology there are quotas set. In medicine especially this is a nationally imposed quota. But all professional schools to some extent limit the number of students in a particular area.

So, yes, Alabama would balk at it, but that is why there still might be a place for a governing body like the NCAA. Alabama’s med school “gets told” all the time they can’t except this or that outstanding student because slots for particular fields in medicine are allocated nationally and Alabama has used up their quota.

Actually, UAB is Bama's med school!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Actually, UAB is Bama's med school!

See how that works!

Now think about it this way. Medical College of Georgia in Augusta used to be thought of as the university system med school. As uga considers adding their “own” med school they would have to “share” slots. Unless uga figures out a way to run Augusta out of business.

 

[GTrob21]

I for one, welcome our new B1G overLORDS!!!!!

Bring on THE Ohio State University!

 

[4shotB]

I knew that would press someone's button, which is not what I intended.

I'm not sure how often the current staff stops and thinks if the players they are offering are a good academic fit in addition to athletic (not saying they will be straight a students, but can they make it here period). That's not to say it's not important to them, I'm sure it is.

But by all accounts and messages and information put out by the current staff, star ranking, and attention to the program is number one priority.

Again, let me say, that doesn't mean academics don't matter (maybe shouldn't have used the words "out the window", think of it as a hyperbole if you will), but it is a much distant second in importance when it comes to prospects.

There is certainly more "buzz" (bad pun intended) or publicity around recruiting with this bunch to be sure. But I also hear a lot of discussion about fitting into the culture as well. I think we have too many former players on staff who understand the academic/athletic workload of a GT athlete for them to ignore the academic piece. Why invest in a player who can't make it in the classroom? I think we have not changed our standards but are more aggressive overall in our recruiting approach (also helped with the commitment of staff and $). I still thinking we are fishing in the same pond as always in terms of SA's but having more success. But this is only my opinion as I have no facts or inside information either.

Disclaimer to save a few others some time - yes, I do know that eventually recruiting success needs to translate to on the field results as measured in W's and L's.

 

[4shotB]

I for one, welcome our new B1G overLORDS!!!!!

Bring on THE Ohio State University!

Don't post stuff like this. people who otherwise might believe that OSU and other B10 teams won't fit the culture of the SEC might be persuaded otherwise!

 

[Pointer]

There is certainly more "buzz" (bad pun intended) or publicity around recruiting with this bunch to be sure. But I also hear a lot of discussion about fitting into the culture as well. I think we have too many former players on staff who understand the academic/athletic workload of a GT athlete for them to ignore the academic piece. Why invest in a player who can't make it in the classroom? I think we have not changed our standards but are more aggressive overall in our recruiting approach (also helped with the commitment of staff and $). I still thinking we are fishing in the same pond as always in terms of SA's but having more success. But this is only my opinion as I have no facts or inside information either.

Disclaimer to save a few others some time - yes, I do know that eventually recruiting success needs to translate to on the field results as measured in W's and L's.

That's fair.

 

[RonJohn]

The NFL represents 22 states. How many states have tier one brand programs? More than the NFL, and the NFL only represents one sport. Amazon is paying 1 BILLION just for Thursday night games. How much do you think they'll pay for a package of nationwide games in football/basketball/baseball? People may be cord cutting, but there is more content than ever before because of streaming. BTW, it's not just TVs that are streaming, but phones, computers, ipads/tablets, etc.

But those 22 states are spread across the country, not isolated to 1 or 1-1/2 geographical areas like the SEC. There are no NFL teams in Oregon, but an average person from Oregon might root for or against Seattle or San Francisco based on like or dislike of the city, state, people he know is the city or state, etc. What affinity is an average person in Oregon going to have for the SEC in the current configuration?

People who still think in terms of the "old model" are completely missing the point. Do you know why "2nd tier" teams are still in play? Because they are still part of the content and tier 1 teams still need to fill their schedules. At some point, the bulk of college money will be made from streaming dominant services, and traditional media will be secondary. It looks like the SEC is gearing up for that and every other conference is still a step behind.

I have stated that the "old model" is in deep trouble. I do think that traditional TV services are going to stick around for longer than you seem to think, but they will have a fraction of the current customers. Streaming will take over and be dominate. Something else might take over in 10-20 years that we haven't even thought about at this point. However, if you look at what is happening in streaming now, it isn't reducing cost and adding flexibility. Marvel, Disney, and Star Wars content are now mostly on Disney+. You can't get Netflix content on other services. You can't get AppleTV content on other services. The result is that things are being "bundled" again. The streaming services costs are rising. I don't believe it will be long before the cost of multiple streaming services will be equivalent to the cost of traditional TV. Some people pool together to share a service and pay less. The streaming services have been working on technology solution to prevent that. They haven't been very aggressive up to this point, but most likely they will get very aggressive about it once those services are firmly established. Some people cycle through the services to save money, since they can be turned on/off every month. Watch HBO this month, Disney the next month, Netflix the next month, etc. At this point, the majority of people are not doing that. If that becomes a financial issue for the services, they will just institute yearly commitments. Streaming services are no longer startup type companies. You have companies like ABC/Disney and Apple who both know how to maximize revenue from their properties. I like the streaming services, but it is inevitable that they will become more expensive and less consumer friendly.

With respect to college football, the big elephant in the room is the subsidies that non-sports fans have been providing to sports. In a future where traditional TV does not exist, a non-sports fan is not going to sign up and pay for college football. That means that the 30-40 percent who watch any sports will have to pay extra for what the 60-70 who don't watch any sports were paying just to keep the exact same revenue. Can the SEC make the same money from their own streaming service if they charge $10 per month? Will people subscribe if they have to charge $50 per month? Can the SEC make the same money if people are allowed to start/stop the streaming service during football/basketball/baseball/etc seasons?

My arguments have not been that streaming of sports cannot work. However, there are issues that will need to be worked through. Fans will want to pay less. Sports programs will want to earn more. Streaming will lose subsidies from non-sports fans. Those are issues that will have to be addressed. My argument has not been that the SEC cannot become a nationwide conference. I have simply said that they currently are not a nationwide conference. If they do not have a presence on the West coast, they will not generate a large fan base there. If they totally separate from the rest of college football before expanding to other regions, they will have issues generating a nationwide fan base. That is difficult to understand in the Southeast. If you go into a local cafe, it is likely that there will be Alabama or mutt paraphernalia on the wall and possibly people discussion SEC football. I don't live in Los Angeles, but I seriously doubt there are any cafes with Alabama posters on the wall, and extremely few discussions about SEC football.

 

[LawTalkin Jacket]

How about we make it much more fair and realistic and allow each team a salary pool of $2m(adjusted annually) to be spent on up to 10 players who are not required to be enrolled in school? So, you can spend it all on one Trevor Lawrence or Jadaveon Clowney, or spread it around over 10 players equally. The rest of the team is made up of true scholar athletes. So, players will want to go to Bama still, but if Bama's spent its cap already, then the good players will go elsewhere to get paid. So, we have a minor/G-league for NFL and we still have student athletes.

 

[LawTalkin Jacket]

This is why I floated a thought experiment that got me instantly vilified and skewered. With NIL blowing up everything, Conferences and regional rivalries meaning less and less, and money and semi-pro status meaning more and more, why not cap how many scholarships a school can give to consensus four and five star athletes? The rationale is simply. Pro athletes only have so much room to negotiate which team they can play for or whether than can go to a playoff team. And since college is less and less about players wanting to go to where dear old mom graduated and less about a particular degree program, and more about trying to go play professionally, why not create a little more parity the way the pros do?

How about we make it much more fair and realistic and allow each team a salary pool of $2m(adjusted annually) to be spent on up to 10 players who are not required to be enrolled in school? So, you can spend it all on one Trevor Lawrence, Calvin Johnson, or Jadaveon Clowney, or spread it around over 10 players equally. The rest of the team is made up of true scholar athletes. So, players will want to go to Bama still, but if Bama's spent its cap already, then the good players will go elsewhere to get paid. So, we have a minor/G-league for NFL and we still have student athletes.

 

[RonJohn]

I understand. My point is that colleges have quotas for virtually every conceivable category of student (I was on the President’s cabinet at a small college, so trust me). Yet when it comes to college football we want to “draft” as many semi-pros as possible and then say it’s all about not limiting college admission (and having our cake and eating it too). Even med schools tell students “we’ve met our quota for OBGYN this year but you could enter our gerontology program.”

I guess my frustration, whether my idea is totally stupid or not, is that half the time we act like connection to the learning environment is paramount and other times we say it’s really about money and winning. As the college landscape transitions away from amateurism it might be time to try one more time to “balance” entering classes of football players the way we balance classes for all other students.

I think your example is a little off though. There is a quota for football players entering a school each year. College football programs can only have 25 new enrollees per year. Limiting the number of very good players would be more equivalent to limiting the OBGYN class to only a few top notch students. If you have 10 spots and 5 applicants with a 4.0 undergraduate degree and perfect MCAT scores, then you can only take 2 of those and must fill the other slots with less qualified students.

 

[WreckinGT]

This thread is making me think how awful the NFL would be with no salary caps or drafts. Hopefully that isn't where college football is heading.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think your example is a little off though. There is a quota for football players entering a school each year. College football programs can only have 25 new enrollees per year. Limiting the number of very good players would be more equivalent to limiting the OBGYN class to only a few top notch students. If you have 10 spots and 5 applicants with a 4.0 undergraduate degree and perfect MCAT scores, then you can only take 2 of those and must fill the other slots with less qualified students.

It’s a strained analogy at best. But the 4 and 4 star recruits ARE the OBGYN class is the point.

Again, the analogy is strained, but the 4 and 5 star recruits are the “professional” group coming under the umbrella of a professional organization like medicine.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

How about we make it much more fair and realistic and allow each team a salary pool of $2m(adjusted annually) to be spent on up to 10 players who are not required to be enrolled in school? So, you can spend it all on one Trevor Lawrence, Calvin Johnson, or Jadaveon Clowney, or spread it around over 10 players equally. The rest of the team is made up of true scholar athletes. So, players will want to go to Bama still, but if Bama's spent its cap already, then the good players will go elsewhere to get paid. So, we have a minor/G-league for NFL and we still have student athletes.

Interesting way to get at the same problem.

And for others keeping up with this discussion, the problem is having a professional milieu without true professional standards and parity.

 

[TwinTownTony]

Still think this whole thing blows up when you add in non revenue sports. I just don’t get how these schools are going to swallow the charter flights for their baseball/softball/swimming/volleyball etc

Don't be surprised to see sport sponsorship minimums dropped when the break from the NCAA happens. Many in P5 already want them dropped or lowered drastically. I would imagine many Olympic sports drop to the club level.

 

[bobongo]

I would imagine many Olympic sports drop to the club level.

I wonder how Title IX comes into play in all this? The courts will have to figure that out.