Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Which of these 3 has mess up college football
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GTNavyNuke" data-source="post: 971544" data-attributes="member: 322"><p>OK, respectfully I'll return the banter recognizing that my / our opinion is worth nothing in changing what is:</p><p></p><p><em>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</em>.</p><p></p><p>The entertainment value has everything to do with how well the team performs <em>over time</em>. Better performing teams get more money from their entertainment value. While you could replace players that may have little change in value <em>short term</em> 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.</p><p></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Peace.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GTNavyNuke, post: 971544, member: 322"] OK, respectfully I'll return the banter recognizing that my / our opinion is worth nothing in changing what is: [I]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[/I]. The entertainment value has everything to do with how well the team performs [I]over time[/I]. Better performing teams get more money from their entertainment value. While you could replace players that may have little change in value [I]short term[/I] 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. [I]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] 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. [I]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] 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. [I]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.[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The 2014 ACC Football Championship was played in what city?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Which of these 3 has mess up college football
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top