Which of these 3 has mess up college football

[Heisman's Ghost]

Pick one,

NIL
Transfer Portal
Conference Expansion

All of them.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

None of them. The NCAA created a rigged sport from the beginning. These 3 things are just the latest iteration. More will come until money dissolves the NCAA. If you’ve been a fan of the corrupt sport before why not continue to be. Nothing has really changed.

"None of them." I posted "All of them" "The NCAA created a rigged sport from the beginning" That explains how both could be true.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

The existence of competitor leagues that haven't outdone CFB does not disprove the existence of a player market inside the league.

Obviously there's a lot of name value in the university programs but that name value won't be maintained for free if they no longer compete in the market for talented players. Look at... well, look at Georgia Tech. Yes, it takes decades to piss away name value; no, that doesn't disprove the existence of a market.

Here's the thing: you're claiming that there isn't a market *despite the existence of market participants spending money in that very market outside of just the top few programs.* The evidence of there being a market is crystal clear, it's that there are participants in that market. And as you point out, the market for college basketball players is actually a *hotter* market than the G-League one. It's not an *independent* market - it exists because of existing brand value in the programs - but it's there.

You seem to be doing two things:

The first is ignoring path-dependency, claiming that because you couldn't immediately replace college sports by hiring away all the best players that there is no value to the players. *Where* the market value is depends on the path; *what* the value is, much less so. The claim here is about the latter. There is value to having the best players within the college structure, even if the value of having the best players outside of the name value isn't enough to overturn a century-old institution overnight. It would take magically erasing a century of history and starting from scratch, *but nobody in this thread is arguing that that's what the players should or could do* - bit of a, what's the word, strawman.

The second is substituting collusive ideas with any idea of demonstrating if a market exists. You pitched the scenario swapping all the current players out and sub in new ones, and then have more success than the former players trying to set up a new league. What is this supposed to show beyond that players in a some markets can collude to reduce the competitive cost of the market? What *actually* happens makes the opposite point - the players in the market, *without* a strong collective organization reigning in their behavior, are aggressively competing for players in college sports, even that the middle levels.

And you are taking the fact that college teams are competing for the available players and using their resources to maximize their portion of the available pool of players, as if that is the only factor that drives the value of the college football. When, in fact, the universities would do the same exact thing with lesser talent if those were the only players that were available to them. Further, if all that was available to them was lesser players, it would have zero impact on the value of tv contracts, the revenues the teams would generate or the salaries of the coaches. It is completely independent of the quality of the talent available. College football competes with professional sport not because of the quality of the players, but because of the brand of college football and the brand of the universities of which it is comprised. Without college football, 90% of the players would generate no discernable market for their football skills. This is demonstrably true since the market value of 90% of the players coming out of college is non existent despite there being multiple professional leagues available to them.

By the way, when the NBA allowed players to come right out of HS into the league, it had zero impact on attendance, viewership, revenues, or coaches salaries.

 

[Blue&Gold1034]

College football was messed up before those 3.

Ncaa as run by flunkies appointed by college Prez.

They allowed a few teams to dominate because of an ocean of tv money.

They DIDN'T act to stop the same MEGA P5 schools from being in top 10 every year. THUS THE MONEY RACE. All schools were bought off by the easy money, but this lead to the players grab for "their share"

Only way out was ncaa to tax winning too often to level playing field. Simply reduce total schokarships for winning too much. Yea a mini death penalty for excessive success.

The NCAA tried to prevent the TV money, but Oklahoma and UGA put an end to that. Maybe they could've done more afterwards, but I think the fear of litigation got to them so they let the trend continue.

 

[cpf2001]

And you are taking the fact that college teams are competing for the available players and using their resources to maximize their portion of the available pool of players, as if that is the only factor that drives the value of the college football. When, in fact, the universities would do the same exact thing with lesser talent if those were the only players that were available to them. Further, if all that was available to them was lesser players, it would have zero impact on the value of tv contracts, the revenues the teams would generate or the salaries of the coaches. It is completely independent of the quality of the talent available. College football competes with professional sport not because of the quality of the players, but because of the brand of college football and the brand of the universities of which it is comprised. Without college football, 90% of the players would generate no discernable market for their football skills. This is demonstrably true since the market value of 90% of the players coming out of college is non existent despite there being multiple professional leagues available to them.

By the way, when the NBA allowed players to come right out of HS into the league, it had zero impact on attendance, viewership, revenues, or coaches salaries.

I literally said that the players were NOT the only factor. I said the player market wasn't an "independent market" though there's probably a fancier economic term. I said that the talent battle was a relative one to the rest of the available players.

Everything you say applies to college coaches too, and there's obviously a highly paid market for them. Nobody's proposing we get rid of coach salaries to fix the sport. But really, words don't matter at all in a case like this. Is there a market for college players to make money off college football outside of a few very top programs? Turns out yes, because it exists today regardless of what you and I type here, and it even existed before NIL. If you want to say there's no marketable value to being a college football player, convince me that their relative-talent-to-the-competition isn't the reason they're getting paid.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I literally said that the players were NOT the only factor. I said the player market wasn't an "independent market" though there's probably a fancier economic term. I said that the talent battle was a relative one to the rest of the available players.

Everything you say applies to college coaches too, and there's obviously a highly paid market for them. Nobody's proposing we get rid of coach salaries to fix the sport. But really, words don't matter at all in a case like this. Is there a market for college players to make money off college football outside of a few very top programs? Turns out yes, because it exists today regardless of what you and I type here, and it even existed before NIL. If you want to say there's no marketable value to being a college football player, convince me that their relative-talent-to-the-competition isn't the reason they're getting paid.

Another straw man, good grief. Where did I say only players in the top programs make money off college football?

Again, I said that the only reason why 90% of these players have any market value is that they are an available asset to the primary market which is college football. If they were not available to college football, how can they make money off college football? If they are not available, how are they part of the market?

And, No, it all does not apply to college coaches, because coaches are under contract and there are legal implications of breaking a contract. There are also penalties for illegal contact or tampering with other program's coaches that have seemed to disappear for student athletes.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Um, OK.

Well, then, let me play along.

The entertainment value has almost nothing to do with name on the back of the jersey and everything to do with the name on the front. Outside of the 10% of the players who make the NFL, most of which will only play less than three seasons, there is no discernable market outside of college football. You could replace every FBS football player with their FCS counterpart and the same teams would generate the same ticket sales and television viewership. Those same FBS players could start their own league in the same cities as their colleges and would garner virtually no attendance or television viewership. The only reason there is value is because they are associated with the universities and the players are piggy backing off the goodwill the college programs have developed over the years. The "value" of the student athletes is a myth. It does not exist.

Second, your response ignores the value they receive in free everything from the university. In reality, that compensation is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. For 90% of the football players, it is more than they could ever make playing football outside of college.

Third, i have no idea why concussions are relevant to the discussion or why you are implying that GT is damaging brains, but you are completely off the reservation. Regardless, no one is compelling anyone to play football or go to college. It is voluntary. If they are getting concussions, it is a risk they are clearly willing to take.

Finally... The question is whether creating a system where there are basically no rules is fair or not. The NFL also damages brains and does not allow players to pick whichever team they want to play nor do they allow teams to poach players.

OK, respectfully I'll return the banter recognizing that my / our opinion is worth nothing in changing what is:

The entertainment value has almost nothing to do with name on the back of the jersey and everything to do with the name on the front. Outside of the 10% of the players who make the NFL, most of which will only play less than three seasons, there is no discernable market outside of college football. You could replace every FBS football player with their FCS counterpart and the same teams would generate the same ticket sales and television viewership. Those same FBS players could start their own league in the same cities as their colleges and would garner virtually no attendance or television viewership. The only reason there is value is because they are associated with the universities and the players are piggy backing off the goodwill the college programs have developed over the years. The "value" of the student athletes is a myth. It does not exist.

The entertainment value has everything to do with how well the team performs over time. Better performing teams get more money from their entertainment value. While you could replace players that may have little change in value short term but would erode the team value over time. Look at Ivy League football where there are demonstrably less capable players and that is reflected in their teams entertainment value.

Second, your response ignores the value they receive in free everything from the university. In reality, that compensation is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. For 90% of the football players, it is more than they could ever make playing football outside of college.

I agree their education is worth a lot; more at some schools and less at others. A GT degree is worth a lot more than most liberal arts degree from most P5 schools. But that is not money in the pocket to buy much. The amounts of money that elite football teams make for their coaches and schools dwarfs the compensation the players get. I never said that student athletes got nothing, only implied that they should get as much as possible.

Third, i have no idea why concussions are relevant to the discussion or why you are implying that GT is damaging brains, but you are completely off the reservation. Regardless, no one is compelling anyone to play football or go to college. It is voluntary. If they are getting concussions, it is a risk they are clearly willing to take.

I think it's relevant to the discussion for increasing the compensation for players. Football at any school damages brains from concussions. The better the football program, generally the harder they hit. Concussions are very easy to get and damaging in the long term. My support of GT football is a hypocrisy which I struggle with; I support college football to entertain me which is hurting the players. Sure the players are doing it for the money or glory or adrenaline and it's a free country to do stupid things. But I can only control myself and I don't have to support college football.

Finally... The question is whether creating a system where there are basically no rules is fair or not. The NFL also damages brains and does not allow players to pick whichever team they want to play nor do they allow teams to poach players.

That is a question you are responding to. There are rules and they are enforced like rules in the past have been enforced; those with power and money get away with more outside the rules than those with less power and money. I think the transfer portal and NIL are "fairer" for the players than limiting transfers or limiting NIL. NIL to some extent represents the market value of a player to that schools fans. And yes the NFL damages brains and that is not a consideration in who they play for. So far the NFL has managed to avoid that liability. But social standards change and companies / people are punished for things they did years ago when is was socially "normal" or accepted practice. Not fair but IIWII.

Peace.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Pick one,

NIL
Transfer Portal
Conference Expansion

Hell of a good troll @stech81

 

[cpf2001]

Another straw man, good grief. Where did I say only players in the top programs make money off college football?

Again, I said that the only reason why 90% of these players have any market value is that they are an available asset to the primary market which is college football. If they were not available to college football, how can they make money off college football?

You're right, you didn't say the market inside college football didn't exist for players who wouldn't make the NFL, I misread that. So no need to stress that there is market value to players outside the top 10% of programs. But here's what I take issue with, directly in your words, from your reply to someone who liked the idea of funneling more of the revenue to the players, with the particularly egregious part in bold:

"You could replace every FBS football player with their FCS counterpart and the same teams would generate the same ticket sales and television viewership. Those same FBS players could start their own league in the same cities as their colleges and would garner virtually no attendance or television viewership. The only reason there is value is because they are associated with the universities and the players are piggy backing off the goodwill the college programs have developed over the years. The "value" of the student athletes is a myth. It does not exist."

The name of the school is not the "only" reason for value for players any more than it is for coaches, administrators, or anyone else involved. If all the coaches started their own league in the same cities as their colleges? Failure. If all the ADs did it? Failure. So if there's value to a coach, there's value to a player. And this is what we see in front of us. Yet you dispute that the players have value by constructing some weird argument against a scenario nobody has proposed about trying to replace the system wholesale.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

OK, respectfully I'll return the banter recognizing that my / our opinion is worth nothing in changing what is:

The entertainment value has almost nothing to do with name on the back of the jersey and everything to do with the name on the front. Outside of the 10% of the players who make the NFL, most of which will only play less than three seasons, there is no discernable market outside of college football. You could replace every FBS football player with their FCS counterpart and the same teams would generate the same ticket sales and television viewership. Those same FBS players could start their own league in the same cities as their colleges and would garner virtually no attendance or television viewership. The only reason there is value is because they are associated with the universities and the players are piggy backing off the goodwill the college programs have developed over the years. The "value" of the student athletes is a myth. It does not exist.

The entertainment value has everything to do with how well the team performs over time. Better performing teams get more money from their entertainment value. While you could replace players that may have little change in value short term but would erode the team value over time. Look at Ivy League football where there are demonstrably less capable players and that is reflected in their teams entertainment value.

Second, your response ignores the value they receive in free everything from the university. In reality, that compensation is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. For 90% of the football players, it is more than they could ever make playing football outside of college.

I agree their education is worth a lot; more at some schools and less at others. A GT degree is worth a lot more than most liberal arts degree from most P5 schools. But that is not money in the pocket to buy much. The amounts of money that elite football teams make for their coaches and schools dwarfs the compensation the players get. I never said that student athletes got nothing, only implied that they should get as much as possible.

Third, i have no idea why concussions are relevant to the discussion or why you are implying that GT is damaging brains, but you are completely off the reservation. Regardless, no one is compelling anyone to play football or go to college. It is voluntary. If they are getting concussions, it is a risk they are clearly willing to take.

I think it's relevant to the discussion for increasing the compensation for players. Football at any school damages brains from concussions. The better the football program, generally the harder they hit. Concussions are very easy to get and damaging in the long term. My support of GT football is a hypocrisy which I struggle with; I support college football to entertain me which is hurting the players. Sure the players are doing it for the money or glory or adrenaline and it's a free country to do stupid things. But I can only control myself and I don't have to support college football.

Finally... The question is whether creating a system where there are basically no rules is fair or not. The NFL also damages brains and does not allow players to pick whichever team they want to play nor do they allow teams to poach players.

That is a question you are responding to. There are rules and they are enforced like rules in the past have been enforced; those with power and money get away with more outside the rules than those with less power and money. I think the transfer portal and NIL are "fairer" for the players than limiting transfers or limiting NIL. NIL to some extent represents the market value of a player to that schools fans. And yes the NFL damages brains and that is not a consideration in who they play for. So far the NFL has managed to avoid that liability. But social standards change and companies / people are punished for things they did years ago when is was socially "normal" or accepted practice. Not fair but IIWII.

Peace.

Thank you for your clarification. We do not agree on some things, but thank you for your thoughtful response.

I thoroughly disagree that it is fair in any way to have a system without rules or boundaries, which is what the current transfer portal allows and perpetuates. I think it is myopic to believe it helps a majority of student athletes who will never play professional sports to jump from school to school to maximize their short term NIL revenue at what is clearly a cost to their education and long term career.

I will say it is perplexing to be commenting in a college football forum when you clearly do not support college football.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

You're right, you didn't say the market inside college football didn't exist for players who wouldn't make the NFL, I misread that. So no need to stress that there is market value to players outside the top 10% of programs. But here's what I take issue with, directly in your words, from your reply to someone who liked the idea of funneling more of the revenue to the players, with the particularly egregious part in bold:


The name of the school is not the "only" reason for value for players any more than it is for coaches, administrators, or anyone else involved. If all the coaches started their own league in the same cities as their colleges? Failure. If all the ADs did it? Failure. So if there's value to a coach, there's value to a player. And this is what we see in front of us. Yet you dispute that the players have value by constructing some weird argument against a scenario nobody has proposed about trying to replace the system wholesale.

Yeah, it kind of is the only reason why they have any value.

Also, the argument to replace the players is to prove a point. It is not meant as a proposal.

You seem to be missing my point. Again

Let me try one last time. If the NFL allowed all players to bypass college to the point where there were no more professional caliber players left in college football, would the college football market change? I say not at all. College football has created a false market for players to where they are overvalued compared to what they would make if they were playing in a professional league like the XFL.

Also, if there is such a large market for all these players, why do only 10% end up playing professionally after college?

 

[bigrabbit]

I’ve posted this before so pardon the repeat - but I have imagined coach Prime taking the portal + NIL combo to a new level, outdoing what the SEC factories thought they had perfected, namely a relatively low budget professional football program, housed at but only loosely affiliated with a university - a low cost NFL team unencumbered by free agency rules and player draft/recruitment designed to enhance parity.

If this happens, and after several cycles of Prime’s scholarship rejects getting thrown out and replaced with transfers, resulting in the finest team in the history of “college” football, at that point the factories will come up with new rules to reign things back in.

I can hear administrators at Bama and Uga now (cue Foghorn Leghorn voice): “it’s time, I say it’s time to protect the welfare of our young student athletes who are being so shamefully exploited, blah blah blah.”

 

[stech81]

Hell of a good troll @stech81

I learned from the best

 

[g0lftime]

No doubt television is the root of all of it. Too much money has changed the dynamics for boosters, ADs, coaches, players, fans. Too many games are on television so going to the game becomes less desirable. It’s not a game - it’s a business … no it’s more than that, it’s become fan’s insatiable appetite to win at all cost and diminish the student-athlete to a paid professional. I just read the comments of Dabo Swinney reacting to disgruntled fans during a frustrating season. Saban has had to deal with the same. Tech followers on this site are guilty of the same - unappreciative, abusive, and lack of civility. Just about everyone has forgotten it is just a game. It is not the end all be all. And along with television, social media has only amped up the above. My wife and I are long time Tech supporters - we go to support the student-athletes as former alumni and my wife was a VB letter winner. Yeah, it’s fun to win. But supporting those representing the gold and white means more than just a W. To be honest though, the fans and media are making it less fun for us.

The psychology of fans willing to donate large sums of money to 18 19 year olds to win games, would make a good PHD study. What feeds the ego of sports fans? Why is winning so important that outrageously large donations are a result. Just for GT I am asked to donate to the GT foundation, the GTAA, and now NIL.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Thank you for your clarification. We do not agree on some things, but thank you for your thoughtful response.

I thoroughly disagree that it is fair in any way to have a system without rules or boundaries, which is what the current transfer portal allows and perpetuates. I think it is myopic to believe it helps a majority of student athletes who will never play professional sports to jump from school to school to maximize their short term NIL revenue at what is clearly a cost to their education and long term career.

I will say it is perplexing to be commenting in a college football forum when you clearly do not support college football.

NP. I think very few athletes get a large NIL payout; definitely a small minority of all student athletes and probably a minority of CFB players. Even a minority of P5 CFB players.

You call my thoughts perplexing. I call them hypocritical. No need to quibble as I don't make sense. But as Emerson said (paraphrased), "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I do like college baseball a lot more if that helps. And am trying to branch out to volleyball and basketball.

 

[MWBATL]

Eh....I guess I feel like college football is now a reflection of how our overall society works. If we don't like it, maybe the problem is with us....

 

[cpf2001]

Yeah, it kind of is the only reason why they have any value.

Also, the argument to replace the players is to prove a point. It is not meant as a proposal.

You seem to be missing my point. Again

Let me try one last time. If the NFL allowed all players to bypass college to the point where there were no more professional caliber players left in college football, would the college football market change? I say not at all. College football has created a false market for players to where they are overvalued compared to what they would make if they were playing in a professional league like the XFL.

Also, if there is such a large market for all these players, why do only 10% end up playing professionally after college?

Your claim of "overvalued" is purely based in your apparent dislike of the historical path of sports leagues in the US, but that's entirely arbitrary. Many factors went into creating this market vs a market more like in Europe where there are more professional leagues, but it's still a market. Why is it any more "false" than any other league? All leagues are based on name recognition, historical affiliation, and irrational emotional attachments, when you get down to it. Why would it be bad for the players to get compensation for the value they have in this market? And why this wouldn't apply just as much to coaches and everyone else involved? Why do you particularly have an axe to grind only about the value of the players? Nick Saban couldn't hack it in the NFL so he has no real value as a coach?

You keep bringing up the XFL or other alternate leagues but nobody else is talking about those, or about other post-college opportunities. "The public doesn't really want a third football league" is not the point being debated. Strawman, heal thyself.

For the NFL question - it's not really that relevant but, even there, it's not hard to find people saying the college basketball game suffered because of early entries to the NBA and one-and-done or never-there players. Or that college basketball mattered more in comparison to college football 30 years ago - see the relative demise of the "basketball-centric" conference. So I find it hard to believe that the college football market wouldn't change at all. Would a die-hard Bama fan stop watching? Not likely. Would an NFL-first fan who watches maybe a dozen or so CFB games a year watch less? Over time, most likely. Didn't the creation of the Falcons do something like this to GT already? College baseball is even further away from college football in terms of mass appeal, as well.

 

[Pappa P]

Eh....I guess I feel like college football is now a reflection of how our overall society works. If we don't like it, maybe the problem is with us....

... of course you are right ... no doubt I'm part of the problem as a FB, MBB, and VB season ticket holder.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Eh....I guess I feel like college football is now a reflection of how our overall society works. If we don't like it, maybe the problem is with us....

Problem has always been with us since the garden, man, woman and serpent. But it's all we have, so might as well enjoy it because there are so many moments of grace.

........... College baseball is even further away from college football in terms of mass appeal, as well.

You were doing so well till you pointed out this inconvenient truth.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Your claim of "overvalued" is purely based in your apparent dislike of the historical path of sports leagues in the US, but that's entirely arbitrary. Many factors went into creating this market vs a market more like in Europe where there are more professional leagues, but it's still a market. Why is it any more "false" than any other league? All leagues are based on name recognition, historical affiliation, and irrational emotional attachments, when you get down to it. Why would it be bad for the players to get compensation for the value they have in this market? And why this wouldn't apply just as much to coaches and everyone else involved? Why do you particularly have an axe to grind only about the value of the players? Nick Saban couldn't hack it in the NFL so he has no real value as a coach?

You keep bringing up the XFL or other alternate leagues but nobody else is talking about those, or about other post-college opportunities. "The public doesn't really want a third football league" is not the point being debated. Strawman, heal thyself.

For the NFL question - it's not really that relevant but, even there, it's not hard to find people saying the college basketball game suffered because of early entries to the NBA and one-and-done or never-there players. Or that college basketball mattered more in comparison to college football 30 years ago - see the relative demise of the "basketball-centric" conference. So I find it hard to believe that the college football market wouldn't change at all. Would a die-hard Bama fan stop watching? Not likely. Would an NFL-first fan who watches maybe a dozen or so CFB games a year watch less? Over time, most likely. Didn't the creation of the Falcons do something like this to GT already? College baseball is even further away from college football in terms of mass appeal, as well.

It has nothing to do with dislike of anything.

Let's try this again...

I was responding to the assertion that the players themselves had entertainment value. For at least 90% of them, they do not and the proof is the non existence of entertainment value of the non NFL professional football leagues where the non NFL players (as well as those who cast off from the NFL) play. If the student athletes had entertainment value on their own, those other leagues would be flourishing.

Without the brand and goodwill of college football and the universities of which it is comprised, the student athletes would have virtually no entertainment value. There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise unless you can demonstrate that the players could generate equivalent revenue for an equivalent league that is not college football.