The Next realignment

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,994
I think this is a pipe dream and will never happen. Many of the schools that would be paying money are public universities. I think you will have some tax payers complaining about this as well as they will not be able to pay just the football players. Yes there is a lot of money generated by football, but not enough to support the other programs and pay all the athletes. The only way this could work would be to allow bagmen/booster to pay the football players directly and to do it out in the open. I don’t think they want to open that can of worms. Allowing that, no telling how crazy things would get, plus Uncle Sam is going to want his cut. I think someone will challenge the NFL rule to enter the draft again. I think The timing is right that the NFL would lose. If a normal college player challenge it and not someone like MC, I think you could get some of the public behind it and it could be a Huge wave that I don’t think the NFL has the power to standup against. I think that is more likely than schools paying players.

The problem is that if the courts rule that the athletes are employees, then the schools will have to pay the players. Could be minimum wage, but paid. It would also probably prevent the NCAA from regulating how much is paid to the players unless the players enter a collective bargaining agreement. Schools like Alabama, Texas, Texas A&M could pay top players lots of money. If the NCAA schools joined together without a collective bargaining agreement to limit the amount that "employees" could be paid, that would be collusion and isn't legal.
 

TampaGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,129
The problem is that if the courts rule that the athletes are employees, then the schools will have to pay the players. Could be minimum wage, but paid. It would also probably prevent the NCAA from regulating how much is paid to the players unless the players enter a collective bargaining agreement. Schools like Alabama, Texas, Texas A&M could pay top players lots of money. If the NCAA schools joined together without a collective bargaining agreement to limit the amount that "employees" could be paid, that would be collusion and isn't legal.
I just don’t see them being ruled as employees. If football players are employees then what about the band members, cheerleaders etc. What about club sports. I think there is an overvaluation of the athletes. What I mean, is does it really matter who is playing for GT, you still going to watch GT football. If all the school went to traditional students we are still going to watch. The other thing is that the players aren’t going to strike.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
I just don’t see it. Football drives the American sports world. It drives the media networks. The main sports media networks will get those contract again. It may be on a different proportion but it still will be the big networks regardless.

Hard to say. I spoke with two former NFL players both of whom said they won't allow their kids to play football. Too hard on the body. They want them to play soccer. As soccer takes over ... I think football could get squeezed over time.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
I just don’t see them being ruled as employees. If football players are employees then what about the band members, cheerleaders etc. What about club sports. I think there is an overvaluation of the athletes. What I mean, is does it really matter who is playing for GT, you still going to watch GT football. If all the school went to traditional students we are still going to watch. The other thing is that the players aren’t going to strike.

It could always go the route the Ivy League did ... no scholarships for sports at all. And that would pretty much do it in.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
I think GT to the FCS in the distant future could be possible

Georgia Tech in the FCS would completely destroy any continuing fan support for the Jackets. Sure - 15K or so will show up ... but the vast majority of alumni will find other teams to support. And then ... Tech will have a real problem maintaining it's alumni population together. I attended post grad at Emory and GSU and Tech does a far better job engaging alumni with watch parties .... all that goes away when Tech becomes irrelevant in D1.
 

MikeJackets1967

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,844
Location
Lovely Ducktown,Tennessee
Georgia Tech in the FCS would completely destroy any continuing fan support for the Jackets. Sure - 15K or so will show up ... but the vast majority of alumni will find other teams to support. And then ... Tech will have a real problem maintaining it's alumni population together. I attended post grad at Emory and GSU and Tech does a far better job engaging alumni with watch parties .... all that goes away when Tech becomes irrelevant in D1.
It would be similar to the situation Miami was in during the 1970s when they thought about ending their football program. That's why Fran Curci left Miami for Kentucky in 1973.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,326
Location
Auburn, AL
It would be similar to the situation Miami was in during the 1970s when they thought about ending their football program.

I don't think we are there yet. But TStan CANNOT make a crappy football coach hire. He can't. He has to get the fanbase back.

It's apples and oranges I know, but my HS did it. They were just about dead last and the alumni got together and asked, "Who is the best HS coach in the country available today?" And they went and hired him. Next thing you know, we were playing in state championship. Alabama did something similar with Saban.

We have to find the best football coach available and hire him ... not take the safe "He's got a really good personality. And his choice in loafers is really good too." We need a football guy. Someone who loves it, lives it and wins at it.
 

BCJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
754
If football does survive in the distant future it could be like glorified touch or flag football. I think there are football little leagues in some places in the country that have outlawed tackle football and play flag football.

If it survives... I think tackling looks more like rugby. It doesn't have to be full on 'two hand touch'. But hard hits are going to have to go. Receivers are going to have to be allowed a "fair catch" zone before they get tackled (but man coverage, playing the ball, is fine). Hard sacks on QBs are going to have to be outlawed, especially from the blind side. The flip side is the refs are going to have to be given the power to whistle a play dead when someone is 'wrapped up' or stopped. No more breaking tackles, trying to knock the ball out, or trying to kill the QB. Get two arms around the runner and he's 'down'. More players are going to need to be required to be on the LOS. Blocking techniques need to be more technical and less physical. Kickoffs will need to go or at least come from a punt formation. Fans will complain it's less exciting.

Ironically, I think the future looks more like the 3o offense. People complain about the cut blocking. But the truth is the momentum of collisions in the 3o is more often at a gentler angle than a head-to-head collision. I'd rather play QB in the 30 and get dragged down 20 times a game than take one blindside hit from a blitzing LB trying to knock my head off. Or have someone dive in front of me to trip me up than hit me with a violent crack back...
 

DaltonJacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
228
If it survives... I think tackling looks more like rugby. It doesn't have to be full on 'two hand touch'. But hard hits are going to have to go. Receivers are going to have to be allowed a "fair catch" zone before they get tackled (but man coverage, playing the ball, is fine). Hard sacks on QBs are going to have to be outlawed, especially from the blind side. The flip side is the refs are going to have to be given the power to whistle a play dead when someone is 'wrapped up' or stopped. No more breaking tackles, trying to knock the ball out, or trying to kill the QB. Get two arms around the runner and he's 'down'. More players are going to need to be required to be on the LOS. Blocking techniques need to be more technical and less physical. Kickoffs will need to go or at least come from a punt formation. Fans will complain it's less exciting.

Ironically, I think the future looks more like the 3o offense. People complain about the cut blocking. But the truth is the momentum of collisions in the 3o is more often at a gentler angle than a head-to-head collision. I'd rather play QB in the 30 and get dragged down 20 times a game than take one blindside hit from a blitzing LB trying to knock my head off. Or have someone dive in front of me to trip me up than hit me with a violent crack back...
This! I think in 25 years we are going to be looking at a game that is more similar to rugby than the game we see today. Football must become a contact sport again vs a collision sport.
 

GT_05

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,370
Physics... Speed, high impact... Brain sloshing around despite helmet...

The CDC doesn’t mention sloshing as a cause.

Traumatic brain injuries, including concussions and repeated blows to the head, can lead to it, per the CDC.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top