Author
Topic: NCAA
(Read 10152 times)

847badgerfan · « **Reply #70 on:** February 01, 2024, 10:49:12 AM »

Quote from: MikeDeTiger on February 01, 2024, 10:44:49 AM

I think OAM has made the point that the less successful programs will be incentivized ($) to stick with the big dogs because there has to be doormats. You can't have Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Oregon, etc. all going 6-6 because they got no pastries. I mean, you can, but fans aren't going to want that, and the programs know it.

I think it's a solid point.

Is it?

Sounds more like the NFL with its parity goals. MNC finishes 9-7. Yay!!

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #71 on:** February 01, 2024, 11:12:42 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on February 01, 2024, 10:42:39 AM

For me as a fan, I really don't have any choice.

If I were a Purdue fan like @betarhoalphadelta I think I'd look at the new CFB landscape and either stop caring altogether or at least dial down goals/expectations to something more manageable (ie, beat rival IU, win 50%).

Yeah... I've said it before. I *NEVER* cared about the national championship as a Purdue fan. I still don't. It's a fun game to watch, but I kinda look at it like the Super Bowl as I don't really have a true fandom of an NFL team. I might pick a team I want to win that day, but it's never "personal" to me.

I knew that the national championship was only in the sights of the helmet teams, and that Purdue isn't and will never be one of those.

What I cared about as a Purdue fan was exciting games to watch, pushing for a winning record and bowl eligibility, and with an OUTSIDE chance of winning the conference and going to the Rose Bowl. Purdue football under Joe Tiller (and then under Jeff Brohm) was fun.

With an 18-team conference, and with a "two best teams" determinant of CCG eligibility, Purdue has a MUCH harder mathematical road to even having a chance at making the CCG. And with a CCG, even if they have a magical season and make it, they're likely to get hammered by OSU or UM (or USC). And NIL and the transfer portal means that Purdue is going to be even more hampered talent-wise than when football was purely amateur recruiting.

So winning the conference has gone from a pipe dream that I at least thought might happen on a generational level to "ehh, not going to happen, ever again."

And then what? Let's say Purdue wins the B1G... Do they get to go to the Rose Bowl and play the PAC champ, in a ONE-GAME celebration of the successful season? No. The Rose Bowl is part of the CFP and the PAC doesn't exist. Purdue with their lack of talent gets the opportunity to go get slaughtered in the CFP.

Football is increasingly becoming not fun for a fan of a team like Purdue. The structure is basically saying Purdue gets to be a permanent doormat, and they should just be happy that they're still cashing B1G checks and haven't been thrown to the curb yet like Wazzou or OrSU.

Which, quite frankly, is what will happen if the big boy schools ditch the NCAA and set up big boy CFB. Purdue won't get an invite. And I'm increasingly finding it harder and harder to care if/when that happens.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #72 on:** February 01, 2024, 12:51:20 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on February 01, 2024, 09:18:57 AM

The state of college football is headed for disaster. That can't be overplayed. It's not sustainable.

Always has been.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #73 on:** February 01, 2024, 01:10:30 PM »

??

It was fine before all of the realignment and huge money, which were the first strikes.

Throw in free transfers and NIL and it's a disaster.

Mdot21 · « **Reply #74 on:** February 01, 2024, 01:34:12 PM »

people don't want to hear it, but the only way to fix this is simple.

B1G & SEC should swallow up whatever teams that are left that are worth taking. They should then ditch the NCAA and set up their own governing body and super league of 48-64 teams, something like this. The schools should allow players to participate in revenue sharing and the players should unionize and collective bargain with the new governing body/super league. Every position group at every school will get paid the same amount- QB's get X amount, RB's get Y amount, and so and so forth- and there should be a pay scale- the longer you're there- the more you get paid- SR's make more than Frosh. And because they are getting paid and signing contracts- players can't just willy nilly leave in the portal whenever they feel like it. This should drastically cut down on NIL inducement for recruiting- and it should eliminate the pain in the ass that has become the portal. And it should kill the NCAA. Win. Win. Win. In my book.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #75 on:** February 01, 2024, 01:39:19 PM »

I was all for players being compensated... with scholarships.

If making them employees and taking out transfers is the way, then fine.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #76 on:** February 01, 2024, 01:51:50 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on February 01, 2024, 01:10:30 PM

??

It was fine before all of the realignment and huge money, which were the first strikes.

Throw in free transfers and NIL and it's a disaster.

I still think this all started with the Bowl Coalition / Bowl Alliance / BCS.

College football was primarily about conference championships and bowl games. The national championship was a beauty pageant and everyone knew it. It was by definition subjective as you could have two teams both finish undefeated, playing in different conferences perhaps with zero common opponents, etc. How do we determine a champ? We vote with the eye test!

Well, people didn't like that. They said the beauty pageant wasn't enough. We need an OBJECTIVE national champion.

So they said #1 and #2 must face off at the end. But sometimes it was really hard to figure out who #1 and #2 are--whether we have three power conference undefeateds, or three power conference 1-loss teams, or one undefeated and two one-loss teams trying to figure out #2. And of course the discussion of "who are the #1 and #2 teams?" took up nearly ALL of the media coverage because we MUST decide this before they play, right?

But with worthy #3 teams left out, they said that wasn't good enough. How do you know that the winner of the BCSCG is ACTUALLY better than the #3 team? It's not objective

-- so we expand to 4 teams. And all the media cares about by midseason is who those 4 teams are.

Now they say 4 teams isn't enough. So we need 12. Maybe this will actually give us what you can call a truly objective national champion. But in doing so, it basically devalues the season of 90% of the sport. Especially when most of those teams will never sniff the CFP and have zero chance to win it if they do.

The sport IMHO was ruined by the endless desire to crown an objective national champion, which made the national championship the ONLY relevant discussion in the entire sport. It's crowded out everything else.

The addition of the transfer portal and NIL just cements that the have-nots will ALWAYS be have-nots and makes their existence irrelevant beyond being doormats for 10% of the teams in this country to beat up on.

Mdot21 · « **Reply #77 on:** February 01, 2024, 01:52:01 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on February 01, 2024, 01:39:19 PM

I was all for players being compensated... with scholarships.

If making them employees and taking out transfers is the way, then fine.

scholarships aren't worth jacksh*t. those players are worth WAY more than whatever those scholarships cost the school.

utee94 · « **Reply #78 on:** February 01, 2024, 01:59:04 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on February 01, 2024, 01:51:50 PM

I still think this all started with the Bowl Coalition / Bowl Alliance / BCS.

ESPN and the 24/7 sports news cycle has had a tremendous effect, as well. Part of the reason college football was a regional sport, is because for the most part it was regionally reported upon.

Drew4UTk · « **Reply #79 on:** February 01, 2024, 02:04:17 PM »

I believe the NIL was implemented with good intentions, and immediately folks figured out how to fit between the cracks and made a sit show out of it.

I love that someone is finally fighting back against the NCAA, who has long applied rules uneven. As much as I dislike Bob Stoops, he hit the nail square after his brush with them and after USCw walked clean- "the take away is to never self report and don't cooperate". boom. facts. that said, none of them should be cheating.

the freakin rule book for student athletes and recruiting is larger and far more alive than the US tax code... anytime- ANYTIME- something bloats like that, there are crevices. more successful schools in the last decade knew how to navigate them as they had teams of high caliber lawyers combing through it- they could afford to do that and that effort bore fruit. it's kinda that simple.

NIL is off the chain.. however, the NCAA can't come up with a rule today and attempt to hold someone responsible for two years ago. in the case of Nico at UT he was being paid as a HS player- which is legal in CA... and the agency he signed with shopped markets and the market in TN was willing to pay a lot more than others... the school didn't arrange that at least in a sense that can be proven... but you and i both know they were in the shadows. same with that kid that rebuffed UF... they 'thought' they had that kind of $$ but turns out they didn't- and that kid went to another market as a result.

all aside, though, I just miss the purity of the game when all this drama didn't matter and wasn't even a consideration... yeah, the schools were exploiting those kids and had been.... but we knew nothing about it unless they broke a rule and when the NCAA had honor.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #80 on:** February 01, 2024, 02:37:41 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on February 01, 2024, 10:48:02 AM

Northwestern is still competing, for now.

What they did last year after the Fitz debacle was amazing.

Are they?

I "liked" your post because finishing above .500 after THAT off-season was truly remarkable but:

They still finished two games out of first place in the terrible B1G-W.
Even if they had beaten Iowa, tied for the B1G-W Championship, and won the tie based on the win over Iowa that would only have gotten them a date with Michigan and . . . Ask as Iowa fan how that worked out for them.
Iowa was the B1G-W Champion, the best team in the west. They played two of the best three B1G-E teams and lost the two games by a combined 57-0 without ever so much as making opposing fans nervous.

Here are last year's final standings but with divisions removed (starts next season):

9-0 Michigan
8-1 Ohio State, lost only to M
7-2 Penn State (wins tie with Iowa based on H2H), lost only to tOSU/M
7-2 Iowa, lost to PSU, MN
5-4 Northwestern (wins tie with UW based on H2H)

In last year's scheme they were one game (Iowa) from making the B1GCG although I would argue that is a pretty empty prize since any if the B1G-E's top-3 teams could have handled them easily with their second string but at least they were close.

In next year's scheme the B1GCG would have been a tOSU/M rematch that Northwestern would have been three games out of and that is BEFORE accounting for the additions of:

Washington, finished 9-0 in the Pac
Oregon, finished 8-1 in the Pac
USC, finished 5-4 in the Pac
UCLA, finished 4-5 in the Pac.

If next year's set-up had existed last year, Northwestern would likely have finished 8th in the B1G behind M/UW/tOSU/ORE/PSU/IA/USC.

Even if they had somehow nabbed the #2 spot, any of tOSU/M/WASH/ORE/PSU would have slaughtered them in a game never in doubt after halftime.

They are competing for:

Beat instate rival, they did.
Win 50%, they did.
Win meaningless bowl, they did.

In the new B1G that is it. There are no further achievable goals for NU except possibly to make the CFP and be cannon-fodder for some SEC team's tune-up before they face tOSU/M/WASH/ORE/PSU.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #81 on:** February 01, 2024, 02:51:58 PM »

Quote from: Drew4UTk on February 01, 2024, 02:04:17 PM

all aside, though, I just miss the purity of the game when all this drama didn't matter and wasn't even a consideration... yeah, the schools were exploiting those kids and had been.... but we knew nothing about it unless they broke a rule and when the NCAA had honor.

I've always found the supporting arguments for this pov to be flawed, and thus it didn't bother me for schools not to pay players. I just also found arguments against athletes receiving $ from outside sources to be likewise flawed, and so NIL, while I don't like it, is not something I can really complain about.

But all this gets to the point of something utee94 mentioned in the Hotties thread, about Olivia Dunne spearheading an NIL collective for girls. Female athletes can't claim exploitation and never could, because I don't know about yall's schools, but at LSU our women's teams don't make a dime. Every program besides football, baseball, and maybe men's basketball--although I'm not even sure about that--lose the school money. You can't exploit somebody you're giving a free ride to who ultimately loses you money. So if women have the ability to earn $ based on their NIL outside of the school, that's got to be where the money comes from, because that's the only place it is, and ever was. And the kicker is, this applies to a majority of male athletes as well. Track and field, golf, fishing, you name it....those dudes don't make LSU any money. Or any other school either.

They weren't being exploited by the schools. But they were being prohibited--perhaps unjustly so--from using their talents to make money.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but LSU is one of the few schools whose baseball program makes money. I think that reality is lost in these "scholarship is/is not just compensation" conversations. We're only talking about one sport...football...that makes athletic departments money hand over fist. While I still find the exploitation/scholly-is-not-enough arguments flawed, I can at least see their point in football. I'm not even trying to listen to any of that about other sports.

The rest of the world can pay Olivia Dunne and Angel Reese. LSU just loses money on them and owes them nothing.

Mdot21 · « **Reply #82 on:** February 01, 2024, 03:30:37 PM »

Quote from: MikeDeTiger on February 01, 2024, 02:51:58 PM

I've always found the supporting arguments for this pov to be flawed, and thus it didn't bother me for schools not to pay players. I just also found arguments against athletes receiving $ from outside sources to be likewise flawed, and so NIL, while I don't like it, is not something I can really complain about.

But all this gets to the point of something utee94 mentioned in the Hotties thread, about Olivia Dunne spearheading an NIL collective for girls. Female athletes can't claim exploitation and never could, because I don't know about yall's schools, but at LSU our women's teams don't make a dime. Every program besides football, baseball, and maybe men's basketball--although I'm not even sure about that--lose the school money. You can't exploit somebody you're giving a free ride to who ultimately loses you money. So if women have the ability to earn $ based on their NIL outside of the school, that's got to be where the money comes from, because that's the only place it is, and ever was. And the kicker is, this applies to a majority of male athletes as well. Track and field, golf, fishing, you name it....those dudes don't make LSU any money. Or any other school either.

They weren't being exploited by the schools. But they were being prohibited--perhaps unjustly so--from using their talents to make money.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but LSU is one of the few schools whose baseball program makes money. I think that reality is lost in these "scholarship is/is not just compensation" conversations. We're only talking about one sport...football...that makes athletic departments money hand over fist. While I still find the exploitation/scholly-is-not-enough arguments flawed, I can at least see their point in football. I'm not even trying to listen to any of that about other sports.

The rest of the world can pay Olivia Dunne and Angel Reese. LSU just loses money on them and owes them nothing.

yeah, gonna have to disagree with you vehemently there. the football players- specifically in the SEC & B1G- have been getting exploited, period, end of discussion. THEY are the ones driving the insane revenues. And not a damn other person except for the coaches- and well- those coaches are all WELL compensated with multi-million dollar per year guaranteed contracts (Hi Mel Tugger!)- and it's NOT the coaches who risk life and limb out there on the field every practice and every Saturday- it's THE PLAYERS.

B1G's latest tv deal was $8 billion. EIGHT. BILLION. F**KING. DOLLARS. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me the players don't deserve a cut of any of that? Uh, yeah, no. The only reason they get that kind of TV deal is again because of.....the players, who you know, actually, play the games. And that's just the TV money. This doesn't take into account ticket sales, concessions sales, parking revenues, merchandise & licensing, donations (teams that tend to win a lot- typically tend to get fatter donation checks from boosters/alums).

Most lucrative TV contracts in media is the NFL, obviously. And you know what? The players get a FAT chunk of that tv money. Second most lucrative TV contracts in all of media? B1G & SEC football. And the players get absolutely none of that.

Enough with this, "but oh they get a a scholarship" bullsh*t please. That scholarship isn't worth the paper it's written on in comparison to the INSANE revenues those players are generating year in year out.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #83 on:** February 01, 2024, 03:41:40 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on February 01, 2024, 02:37:41 PM

Even if they had beaten Iowa, tied for the B1G-W Championship, and won the tie based on the win over Iowa that would only have gotten them a date with Michigan and . . . Ask as Iowa fan how that worked out for them.

The top three teams in the B1G-E played a combined total of 10 games against B1G-W teams last year:

Ohio State beat Wisconsin by 14, 24-10
Penn State beat Illinois by 17, 30-13
Michigan beat Iowa by 26, 26-0
Michigan beat Purdue by 28, 41-13
Penn State beat Northwestern by 28, 41-13
Penn State beat Iowa by 31, 31-0
Ohio State beat Purdue by 34, 41-7
Ohio State beat Minnesota by 34, 37-3
Michigan beat Nebraska by 38, 45-7
Michigan beat Minnesota by 42, 52-10

In those 10 games the B1G-W teams never scored more than 13 and the "Big Three" from the B1G-E never scored less than 24. Of the three closest games (tOSU/UW, PSU/IL, and M/IA) two were hosted by the B1G-W team and the other one was the neutral-site CG. The Big Three won all the others by at least four TD's each.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: NCAA

847badgerfan

Re: NCAA

betarhoalphadelta

Re: NCAA

bayareabadger

Re: NCAA

847badgerfan

Re: NCAA

Mdot21

Re: NCAA

847badgerfan

Re: NCAA

betarhoalphadelta

Re: NCAA

Mdot21

Re: NCAA

utee94

Re: NCAA

Drew4UTk

Re: NCAA

medinabuckeye1

Re: NCAA

MikeDeTiger

Re: NCAA

Mdot21

Re: NCAA

medinabuckeye1

Re: NCAA