Is college football near the end as we know it.

[alagold]

It’s going to be interesting to watch, but one thing I’ve learned in my 50 years on this earth is that there are always unintended consequences that no one can predict. I don’t think this will work out like the factories and masses think it will for some reason.

One thing bouncing in my mind is the jersey selling thought with large fan bases and the worry that that is where top recruits will go to make money. Take UGA. I’m sure their highest selling jersey would be Fromm and Swift. If money is from sales, would Zeus have signed knowing he’d have to wait till Swift left to be the top seller? Or would he have signed somewhere where he’d be the top guy as a freshman? Plus, take in human jealousy. Will teams like Bama and UGA be able to keep a depth chart like they have now if RB1 makes X amount more than RB2 who is also a 5 star.

And if it just turns into the Wild West of alumni throwing money you’ll see random schools becoming major players just thru alumni cash. Stanford could easily buy any player they wanted. Tim Cook is an Auburn grad. How many players could he buy? Schools like UGA and Bama have huge fan bases but what about schools with much deeper pockets?

Good point.Not only that but who controls what you pay players for? services--show up for car show or cut my grass--each pays 5k--hmmm--rich alumni can say anything and pay that also

 

[Old South Stands]

I don’t really think some players getting paid based off their contributions would destroy the locker room nearly as bad as some of you think. I mean, there’s already huge pay discrepancies in pro sports, upwards of $20M a year between teammates. That doesn’t really affect how teammates play with each other. Sure there will be some guys that will play for individual glory rather than team success, but that already happens anyway, in all levels of sports. Plus it’s not like players don’t already know who the stars are, and who is used to promote the team. When ESPN promotes Clemson or Oklahoma games, they talk about Hurts, or Lawrence, or Etienne. They don’t talk about the gunner that’s on punt coverages. At the end of the day, the teams that win more will have more support, and there will be more money out there for the players on those teams. I believe if players were able to make money off their likeness it might make Bowl games entertaining and meaningful again. New Year’s Day bowls used to mean everything for schools, now unless they’re in the CFP it’s just a meaningless exhibition.

I don't know if I'd agree... NFL players have hit the big time. One poster earlier mentioned that it's a rare privilege to play in the NFL, and with the base salary being somewhere around a half million or so, that's a big part of it. In society's eyes, you're already a winner just by making it to the show, even if you play for Cleveland. I think there's (generally speaking) a level of professionalism and even maturity in an NFL locker room that you don't find yet in a college locker room. I think at that young age in today's entitlement culture, there could be a lot of resentment.

 

[lauraee]

Enforce NCAA and all athletic associations of every school to be truly non-profit. Any profit after expenditures (general overhead, stadium expansion, funding non-football/basketball sports, etc) should go into a pool for grants to students so they don't have to take out such a huge loan that cripple their lives coming out of college.

Yes, pipe dream but I don't believe collegiate athletes should be paid. Look at any other examples of capitalism run amok. Disastrous with the winner take all dichotomy that we're seeing today in our professional lives. We shouldn't be introducing the almighty dollar into collegiate sports. It will destroy it.

Almighty $ already well established in collegiate sports and has been for a while.

 

[Vespidae]

And try as I may I cannot think of a single reason the NCAA or the university should own the rights to a player's image or deny a player who has reached the age of consent -- what a quaint term that has become -- the right to earn money on his own accomplishments.

If a player is going to earn money on his own accomplishments, then he doesn’t need a grant in aid from a sponsoring athletic association.

 

[Skeptic]

If a player is going to earn money on his own accomplishments, then he doesn’t need a grant in aid from a sponsoring athletic association.

So good. Let me know which is the first university to apply your standard. It is up to them, right? So stop. You think they will?

 

[Vespidae]

So good. Let me know which is the first university to apply your standard. It is up to them, right? So stop. You think they will?

What’s the point of offering a grant when the kid makes more money pimping his jersey?

I don’t have an answer for running the NCAA. But if college sports goes in this direction, you may as well give it to the pros.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Just like some thought the progress toward graduation would help level the playing field, in fact it has hurt Tech more than just about any other school. It did the opposite. It probably hurt us more than any change in decades. Very few transfers and we now lose players in a year or two instead of 3-4 due to academics . There is no way this new change will in any way help Tech. For those thinking rich graduates will step in, keep dreaming. The system is setup to help those schools who are able to stretch the rules.

 

[Skeptic]

What’s the point of offering a grant when the kid makes more money pimping his jersey?

I don’t have an answer for running the NCAA. But if college sports goes in this direction, you may as well give it to the pros.

Well -- and while I gather it is an anecdotal sense I really object to the "pimping" term; if I know what a pimp is he doesn't provide jerseys -- the argument was about getting a cut from his college when his college (and/or the NCAA) made money from his image or actions. So he has to be in school for that. And no school, no matter how much they protest, is going to quit offering scholarships because they would then have to make croquet the school sport. So it is in their ballyard and their decision.

I have not reached the position of salaries and I don't think that is what this is about. I have a lot of regard for what Swinney has done at Clemson, but I do object seriously when a coach who gets huge bonuses for doing what he was paid handsomely to do once -- win championships -- and who drives cars provided by local dealerships at cut lease rates, then preaches about "too many entitlements already" when the subject of paying players comes up. He is far from the only one so I'm not picking on him. (I really doubt that all those coaches wearing Nike gear on the sideline paid cash for it.)

We will have college football, so don't fret. It will be different off the field and it should be. But between the lines they are still teens banging into each other.

 

[takethepoints]

This whole thing will bring the gamblers directly into the game (they are already indirectly in it up to their chins already) and federal regulation won't be far behind. This whole situation is very like what happened in TR's time when the "flying wedge" was outlawed and the colleges began to police themselves. Problem = most major college football programs have absolutely no interest in policing themselves and neither do most administrations. So the political process and the DoL will do it for them.

And, of course, there's a way out and I predict it will be taken. Put all of college football - nay, all college athletics - on Div. 3 status. This won't stop athletic scholarships, of course; the colleges will tailor academic scholarships accordingly. But it will lead to a lessening of donor interference in recruiting and to a vast reduction in coaching salaries. (Then folks like Saban will have to find something socially useful to do with their time, for which three cheers.) The key to this is federal support for college tuition so that every youngster who qualifies can go to college. The main reason the colleges have gotten behind major sports programs is to replace missing state fund with increased donor revenue.

I think there's more to it, but that would be a TL/DL.

 

[Skeptic]

This whole thing will bring the gamblers directly into the game (they are already indirectly in it up to their chins already) and federal regulation won't be far behind. This whole situation is very like what happened in TR's time when the "flying wedge" was outlawed and the colleges began to police themselves. Problem = most major college football programs have absolutely no interest in policing themselves and neither do most administrations. So the political process and the DoL will do it for them.

And, of course, there's a way out and I predict it will be taken. Put all of college football - nay, all college athletics - on Div. 3 status. This won't stop athletic scholarships, of course; the colleges will tailor academic scholarships accordingly. But it will lead to a lessening of donor interference in recruiting and to a vast reduction in coaching salaries. (Then folks like Saban will have to find something socially useful to do with their time, for which three cheers.) The key to this is federal support for college tuition so that every youngster who qualifies can go to college. The main reason the colleges have gotten behind major sports programs is to replace missing state fund with increased donor revenue.

I think there's more to it, but that would be a TL/DL.

You make sense so that excuses you from the board. Thanks for coming by.

 

[JorgeJonas]

The key to this is federal support for college tuition so that every youngster who qualifies can go to college.

Federal “support“ is almost never the key to anything.

Also, $22,000,000,0000,000.

 

[takethepoints]

Federal “support“ is almost never the key to anything.

Also, $22,000,000,0000,000.

Uh, I said support, not free tuition. Caution: TL/DR below.

We need to re-up the California model. What they did to make their university system the envy of the world and the model for the rest of the US was simple. First, the state subsidized tuition so that most families of young people who could get into the UC system could afford it if they kicked in on their own. That made sure that most eligible kids could get in and both the state and the families had skin in the game. Then the state went on an infrastructure project to provide places for the students to go and profs to teach them. Both sides of this meant higher taxes, but the state got a much more highly educated population and a much higher state income, advantages they have never relinquished since. Other states - Massachusetts was the most successful - imitated this and got the same results.

Until Howard and Ron. The program cost a lot of money, especially the infrastructure part. (Tuition subsidies were nowhere near as costly.) So when Proposition 13 passed and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement became prominent, Ron was able to ride a tax reduction program to the governor's chair. This made him the first California governor in the modern era to not treat the UC system as the golden goose it was and, to a lesser extent, still is. This, in turn, led to other states reducing taxes on the backs of post secondary education, to the Feds coming up with Pell grants and student loans (and the attendant crisis today), and to the constant sound of sucking heard in college administration buildings whenever somebody with money comes in view.

We need to stop this. NOW. The US is now 13th among OECD countries in the percent of our college-age students who are in school. That number is not, repeat not, trending up. Our economic future depends on how well educated our population is. The choice is simple: stand in place, see the percentage of the population with college degrees continue to plunge, and become Brazil or pony up and remain the US.

 

[JacketOff]

Uh, I said support, not free tuition. Caution: TL/DR below.

We need to re-up the California model. What they did to make their university system the envy of the world and the model for the rest of the US was simple. First, the state subsidized tuition so that most families of young people who could get into the UC system could afford it if they kicked in on their own. That made sure that most eligible kids could get in and both the state and the families had skin in the game. Then the state went on an infrastructure project to provide places for the students to go and profs to teach them. Both sides of this meant higher taxes, but the state got a much more highly educated population and a much higher state income, advantages they have never relinquished since. Other states - Massachusetts was the most successful - imitated this and got the same results.

Until Howard and Ron. The program cost a lot of money, especially the infrastructure part. (Tuition subsidies were nowhere near as costly.) So when Proposition 13 passed and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement became prominent, Ron was able to ride a tax reduction program to the governor's chair. This made him the first California governor in the modern era to not treat the UC system as the golden goose it was and, to a lesser extent, still is. This, in turn, led to other states reducing taxes on the backs of post secondary education, to the Feds coming up with Pell grants and student loans (and the attendant crisis today), and to the constant sound of sucking heard in college administration buildings whenever somebody with money comes in view.

We need to stop this. NOW. The US is now 13th among OECD countries in the percent of our college-age students who are in school. That number is not, repeat not, trending up. Our economic future depends on how well educated our population is. The choice is simple: stand in place, see the percentage of the population with college degrees continue to plunge, and become Brazil or pony up and remain the US.

Not really a conversation about the doomsday of college football, but I would say that the percentage of college aged citizens who aren’t enrolled in college but are instead learning or working in trades is just as important for economic success. Until you can make technology fix cars, build skyscrapers, or wire a house, you’re going to need skilled trade workers.

 

[Skeptic]

Federal “support“ is almost never the key to anything.

Also, $22,000,000,0000,000.

Now you are being silly. Hospitals, roads, airports, bridges, military, social services, health services and the list goes on. And if you live in Georgia or any other Southern state, welcome to the world of getting from the federal government more than we pay in taxes .. and whining about it.

 

[takethepoints]

Not really a conversation about the doomsday of college football, but I would say that the percentage of college aged citizens who aren’t enrolled in college but are instead learning or working in trades is just as important for economic success. Until you can make technology fix cars, build skyscrapers, or wire a house, you’re going to need skilled trade workers.

I agree to an extent. The old saw is right: "Without our philosophers and our plumbers, neither our theories or our pipes would hold water." Still, I don't think there is any question that the path to continuing prosperity is in collegiate education, particularly high tech collegiate education. We can't do without skilled trades, but the way those trades work is requiring more and more expertise.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Uh, I said support, not free tuition. Caution: TL/DR below.

We need to re-up the California model. What they did to make their university system the envy of the world and the model for the rest of the US was simple. First, the state subsidized tuition so that most families of young people who could get into the UC system could afford it if they kicked in on their own. That made sure that most eligible kids could get in and both the state and the families had skin in the game. Then the state went on an infrastructure project to provide places for the students to go and profs to teach them. Both sides of this meant higher taxes, but the state got a much more highly educated population and a much higher state income, advantages they have never relinquished since. Other states - Massachusetts was the most successful - imitated this and got the same results.

Until Howard and Ron. The program cost a lot of money, especially the infrastructure part. (Tuition subsidies were nowhere near as costly.) So when Proposition 13 passed and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement became prominent, Ron was able to ride a tax reduction program to the governor's chair. This made him the first California governor in the modern era to not treat the UC system as the golden goose it was and, to a lesser extent, still is. This, in turn, led to other states reducing taxes on the backs of post secondary education, to the Feds coming up with Pell grants and student loans (and the attendant crisis today), and to the constant sound of sucking heard in college administration buildings whenever somebody with money comes in view.

We need to stop this. NOW. The US is now 13th among OECD countries in the percent of our college-age students who are in school. That number is not, repeat not, trending up. Our economic future depends on how well educated our population is. The choice is simple: stand in place, see the percentage of the population with college degrees continue to plunge, and become Brazil or pony up and remain the US.

I think the issue I take with this is that it’s quantitative, not qualitative. The idea that going to college is, per se, better than not is just not something with which I can get on board. I’m an attorney, and there’s not a day of my life that goes by that I don’t wish I was a welder. I’m proud of having graduated fro Tech, but I’m not sure how much better served I’d be if I had gone to a trade school, instead.

Your point about the higher skilled trades is well taken, though.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Now you are being silly. Hospitals, roads, airports, bridges, military, social services, health services and the list goes on. And if you live in Georgia or any other Southern state, welcome to the world of getting from the federal government more than we pay in taxes .. and whining about it.

I’m not, though. Most of the items you list aren’t public goods, and without relitigating Wickard v. Filburn, most of the things listed shouldn’t be handled at the federal level.

Regarding the issue of donor states, though, most of those analyses don’t consider the form of the transfer. For example, if a person loves his entire life in, say, Connecticut (because of access to financial markets) and moved to Florida upon retirement, the payment goes to Florida, even though the taxes were paid in CT. It’s not quite as simple as taxes paid minus benefit received, I guess, is what I’m saying.

 

[Vespidae]

Uh, I said support, not free tuition. Caution: TL/DR below.

We need to re-up the California model. What they did to make their university system the envy of the world and the model for the rest of the US was simple. First, the state subsidized tuition so that most families of young people who could get into the UC system could afford it if they kicked in on their own. That made sure that most eligible kids could get in and both the state and the families had skin in the game. Then the state went on an infrastructure project to provide places for the students to go and profs to teach them. Both sides of this meant higher taxes, but the state got a much more highly educated population and a much higher state income, advantages they have never relinquished since. Other states - Massachusetts was the most successful - imitated this and got the same results.

Until Howard and Ron. The program cost a lot of money, especially the infrastructure part. (Tuition subsidies were nowhere near as costly.) So when Proposition 13 passed and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement became prominent, Ron was able to ride a tax reduction program to the governor's chair. This made him the first California governor in the modern era to not treat the UC system as the golden goose it was and, to a lesser extent, still is. This, in turn, led to other states reducing taxes on the backs of post secondary education, to the Feds coming up with Pell grants and student loans (and the attendant crisis today), and to the constant sound of sucking heard in college administration buildings whenever somebody with money comes in view.

We need to stop this. NOW. The US is now 13th among OECD countries in the percent of our college-age students who are in school. That number is not, repeat not, trending up. Our economic future depends on how well educated our population is. The choice is simple: stand in place, see the percentage of the population with college degrees continue to plunge, and become Brazil or pony up and remain the US.

Hard to say. The German Hauptschule model is quite good. Not everyone needs to go to college but everyone needs a trade. I’m not sure Lesbian Studies, Urban Planning, or Parks and Recreation really advance a society.

Some metrics are too simple.

 

[CuseJacket]

The NCAA's top decision-makers will meet Tuesday in Atlanta for their first formal discussion about modifying rules that currently prohibit college athletes from making money by selling the rights to their names, images or likenesses.

 

[TechPreacher]

The nine most terrifying words in the English language....