header pic

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.


Author

Topic: NCAA

 (Read 10152 times)

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13181
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #98 on: February 01, 2024, 07:48:20 PM »
I've never heard of her gymnastics successes at all.  I assumed she was an Anna Kournikova type (never won, got the most publicity).  If she's not.....shrug.  It's irrelevant. 
Maybe more of a Dan Marino type. Irrelevant at everything but what the weirdo fans want to talk about.

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20430
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2024, 08:41:07 PM »
Maybe more of a Dan Marino type. Irrelevant at everything but what the weirdo fans want to talk about.
Dan Marino's ass was a 7 at best

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7917
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2024, 11:57:03 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.
It's always been headed for disaster. It's a system that at its base is deeply unstable.

It was able to charge stadiums full of people to see the kids play. But the kids were not allowed to access what people wanted to pay them. We know this because under the table stuff went on forever. At some point, that was going to come to a head if schools leaned into wringing out maximum money and could not contain themselves to a certain budget. 

Of course we know how they leaned into raising money. That part is easy, but the other part is more interesting. Schools wanted to win. They realized they could get an edge through spending, and we were set on this course. At some point when paying millions to coaches, building tens of millions in buildings and amenities to attract talent because money couldn't do it, eventually that was going to break. College athletic departments are in a place where they don't allow themselves to say "no" to so many different types of spending. Because if you didn't, you got left behind.  

And in such a spend-heavy space, a flat system of compensation was eventually going to snap. The NCAA did itself no favors by dropping the transfer thing first in hopes of dodging NIL. Transfers might have been salvageable. Maybe. In some ways, it's a super pure market. Kids get whatever the folks with the money want to give them. 

Schools got the most from their value and competed in the ways they could, and there was no other reckoning. Maybe it could've looked a bit different, but this is where it would end. 

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25839
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #101 on: February 02, 2024, 04:41:18 AM »
Caleb Williams has that in his couch cushions.
Do you know that he actually wanted to transfer to Wisconsin? He loved Paul Chryst.

UW couldn't come close to matching U$C.

And this is where we are.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Honestbuckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5835
  • Liked:
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
-Mark Twain

MikeDeTiger

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2024, 11:08:38 AM »
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.


Yeah, I've heard the arguments, and like I said, it's not that I don't see their/your points.  I just find they ignore a variety of other counterpoints and separate points, and personally I ultimately don't find this view persuasive.  But because I understand the opposing POV and also a person in general is unlikely to change their mind on most things, and because it's not that important to me in the grand scheme, I don't spend much time arguing "my" side or trying to change minds in this matter. 

And really, the point of most of my post you responded to was raising an exception to @Drew4UTk where he claimed exploitation for college athletes in general.  I was saying how outside of football, I'm not sure that view is sustainable.  I laid out why, and was hoping for him (or you, or whoever) to respond to see what y'all think. 
« Last Edit: February 02, 2024, 11:15:39 AM by MikeDeTiger »

MikeDeTiger

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2024, 11:14:33 AM »
It is cute you think Olivia Dunne is making money based on her gymnastic talents. 

Seriously though, that does raise an issue that I wanted to bring up.  If I were the AD at Ohio State, I would want NO PART of hosting LSU in a gymnastics meet. 

Oh, I think I've been pretty up front here that her gym skills aren't why she's famous.  I've described her as mediocre and a variety of other adjectives pointing to her lack of gym prowess on our team.  Although.  In attempting to be fair, I should point out that maybe those are still poor choices of words on my part.  LSU has been a very good gym team for several years now, and the fact that she's not one of our best doesn't mean she's not really good, even compared to the average college gymnast.  It could be that there are just a handful of schools--Oklahoma, LSU, Florida, Georgia--that she wouldn't be one of the top members.  We don't know, but all I do know and am saying is she isn't the caliber of many of our past gymnasts, and she's not a standout (in a gym way, anway) on this current team, although she is in the lineup and she is capable and is not out of place on a good team like ours.  But yeah, she's totally not famous for her gymning.  Haleigh Bryant is easily the best on our team, I'd say, and you've probably never heard of her.  

As far as having LSU in for a meet, I get it, and I haven't thought enough about that to agree or disagree.  I did note elsewhere that meets have even been a problem at LSU, with several incidents taking place amongst hormone-driven youths trying to get in to see her. 

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25839
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2024, 11:23:54 AM »
Being an athlete is a choice. We all have to make choices.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17928
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2024, 11:31:37 AM »
And really, the point of most of my post you responded to was raising an exception to @Drew4UTk where he claimed exploitation for college athletes in general.  I was saying how outside of football, I'm not sure that view is sustainable.  I laid out why, and was hoping for him (or you, or whoever) to respond to see what y'all think. 

Absolutely agree here.  It's tough to say they're being exploited when they're being given a free education and their sport is operating at a net loss.

And what's more, all of the other sports can ONLY exist due to the "exploitation" of the football team. At some schools men's basketball is self-sustaining or even running in the black, and at a small handful men's baseball or even women's basketball are net positive, but for the vast majority, football is the primary contributor.  And even then, less than 25% of D1-A/FBS football schools run in the black, anyway.  For most of them, the state/academic side is still cutting checks to support them.  

So if you actually paid football players what they're worth according to a free market system, you'd have to cut pretty much every other sport at the university.  Which of course you can't do because of Title IX, so you'd have to cut football, too.  And then you're killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs.  Which is why this debate has always effectively been a non-starter.

Mdot21

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14408
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2024, 12:05:20 PM »

Yeah, I've heard the arguments, and like I said, it's not that I don't see their/your points.  I just find they ignore a variety of other counterpoints and separate points, and personally I ultimately don't find this view persuasive.  But because I understand the opposing POV and also a person in general is unlikely to change their mind on most things, and because it's not that important to me in the grand scheme, I don't spend much time arguing "my" side or trying to change minds in this matter. 

And really, the point of most of my post you responded to was raising an exception to @Drew4UTk where he claimed exploitation for college athletes in general.  I was saying how outside of football, I'm not sure that view is sustainable.  I laid out why, and was hoping for him (or you, or whoever) to respond to see what y'all think.
I 100% agree with you on this front. all the women's sports & other sports that lose money are funded at the expense of the football players who make all the money, which = exploitation.

it's literally impossible for college athletes to be exploited outside of the football players (in the Big 2 conferences that is). the $8 billion dollar B1G tv contracts are there because of football and football alone.

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20430
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2024, 12:14:28 PM »
The $8 billion tv deals are there because of football.

But also so is the fact that the gymnastics team has to fly to Eugene on a random Tuesday night in February

Mdot21

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14408
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #109 on: February 02, 2024, 12:18:35 PM »
The $8 billion tv deals are there because of football.

But also so is the fact that the gymnastics team has to fly to Eugene on a random Tuesday night in February
this could've been dealt with very easily....could've made realignment football only...or just dissolved the conferences for everything but football and let the women's field hockey teams and women's basketball teams all be independents that play a bunch of regional schools. it's not rocket science. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17928
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #110 on: February 02, 2024, 12:25:55 PM »
this could've been dealt with very easily....could've made realignment football only...or just dissolved the conferences for everything but football and let the women's field hockey teams and women's basketball teams all be independents that play a bunch of regional schools. it's not rocket science.

If you remove football and the money it generates from the conference office's coffers, then the conference is immediately insolvent.  And yet the schools need the conferences as a place to park all of the non-revenue sports.  

You can't bankrupt a conference and then expect it to be able to govern and maintain all of the other sports.  

Which is why this conversation, too, has always been a non-starter.

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17289
  • Liked:
Re: NCAA
« Reply #111 on: February 02, 2024, 12:28:06 PM »
It's always been headed for disaster. It's a system that at its base is deeply unstable.
On the old board I basically stated this when implementing the CFB playoffs - there was immediate talk of expanding it before the ink was even dry. However i never saw this shit storm coming with the unregulated NIL. The portal - I'm fine with for a one time move & play,after that IMO they should sit out a year. My original concerns were many kids sitting justifiably for injury concerns - And that is still valid.

The other  point was these extra games better be on one of participating programs campuses. Because fanbases traveling to 1-2 distant venues is problematic in today's finacially burdensome times any more than that they'll get the media teams and officiating crews in attendance - damn near like covid season
“Always carry a flask of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake.” W.C. Fields

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.