CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Anonymous Coward on October 24, 2018, 03:50:03 PM
-
Saw this on Mgoblog, citing a Dennis Dodd article. Figured it deserves its own thread. Given the controversy/tensions and timing, I wouldn't be surprised if we turn this one into multiple pages.
They gonna lose. Folks inside NCAA thinks it's about to take it on the chin (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/player-compensation-lawsuit-vs-ncaa-could-usher-in-new-round-of-conference-realignment/) in the latest anti-trust lawsuit that's been filed against them, and this is the big one—the one that seeks injunctive relief. IE: rules out the window.
One Power Five commissioner has already told CBS Sports of the Alston trial: "I think we're going to lose." …
"They're after a total free market," Bevilacqua said of the plaintiffs. "There's a lot of good models out there with pro sports. Half the revenue goes to labor. If you're talking about Power Five, college sports is about the size of the NBA (https://www.cbssports.com/nba), $8 billion a year. The NBA is paying their players $4 billion out of the $8 billion. These [college] guys are paid a scholarship. At some point, you make a deal and say, 'I can't give you 50 percent but, you know, I'll give you 10 or 15 percent.' That's $1 billion dollars." …
"[The NCAA is] playing the long game and hanging their hat on amateurism," Bevilacqua said. "Each time Nick Saban gets $10 million a year and an athlete gets [only] a scholarship, it further undercuts their argument.
"They're going to get routed. They're going to lose. If I was them, I would have cut a deal [with the plaintiffs] a long time ago."
Dennis Dodd speculates this will lead to a seismic round of realignment as various schools opt out of paying players. Hopefully one of them is Rutgers.
-
Because we're talking both about conference realignment and player compensation, as always, the most fitting avatar for threads like this:
(https://mgoblog.com/sites/default/files/users/user995/jimdelanymasturbator_large.jpg)
-
I hope Nebraska is one of them too. I have zero interest in following college football based on an unleashed SEC model (Now with 100% more bribery!) where everybody just competes to buy the best players.
This is a break that I have been expecting for some time now, as the sport constitutes to devour itself. As such, I'd be just fine with the Southeastern schools and select others going off to do their own thing, and have NU be part of a recommittment to something approximating collegiate amateur values. A beefed-up FCS or whatnot. I follow more D2 football than SEC already anyway.
-
Strike the tent tell the NFL & NBA good luck.Henceforth Schollies go to student athletes.I don't think the public knows how most programs are teetering from the athletic departments debt.Play hardball,these big stadiums don't cover all the other men's/womens scholarship sports,travel,room & board,for coaches,players,trainers,medical staff
-
yup, the P5s with TV money can afford to pay for football and basketball, but what about the other sports?
If Nebraska is forced to pay players it might shrink the sports offered to men's football and basketball, then Women's basketball, volleyball and a couple others to balance out the football numbers. Football rosters might shrink. What about walk-ons, do they get paid?
and what about D2 and all the other colleges out there with little to no money? Don't those players deserve at least a share?
-
will be interesting to see what the ruling on the basketball scandal has on amateurism (ruled guilty, btw, good for schools, at least initially).
there is an argument to be made that the ruling supports amateurism by criminalizing under the table payments and defrauding schools of grant money. it's not necessarily a strong argument, cause the counter is to bring it above table and pay them outright. but it's another layer to the discussion.
-
The main problem is that the players are getting screwed. Too many of them aren't receiving real educations (How's that "Swahili class" at UNC, guys?). And even if they maximize their education, that token payment is often inferior to the revenue they help their schools accumulate.
I'll admit that many of these players don't get screwed:
- The nameless football and basketball players who sit the bench don't have a market value. Not screwed.
- Almost 100% of the non-revenue athletes also have no market value (those teams bring in less revenue than expenditure for a reason). They, also, are Not screwed.
- The all stars who stay healthy and go pro ... can end up with a market value that overwhelms the market value they had in college. Negligibly screwed.
- But the role players who are too small or slow to go Pro but are nevertheless *excellent* at this game we love and fuel our teams ... For many of *them*, this is the most market value they'll EVER be worth. Why do we "Correct that value to zero" so we can take it from them? So that Dave Brandon can hire 30 MBAs to give PPTs about "brand management." Puhlease. These are the ones it's all about. These guys are EPICALLY SCREWED.
And CFB is *nothing* without role players like that. For Michigan, this would be guys like Bryan Mone, Martavious Odoms, Vincent Smith, Tru Wilson, Ben Mason, Sean McKeon, Lawrence Marshall, maybe even Brandon Watson.
-
I don't think the schools even need to pay the players. Just give them permission to pursue their own market value. If someone wants to pay to put their name and face in a video game? Let them. If someone wants to put them in a commercial? Let them. If someone wants to hand them dollars? Let them.
Only require that it all be properly accounted for tax purposes.
-
It's also a fake argument that these P5 A.D.'s would fold if they had to pay players. Please keep in mind that my preference is to let outsiders (not the university AD) pay the players. But I've seen many studies that argue we could keep these bloated coaching salaries and STILL pay the players if only we shrunk the administrative end of each AD (hiring all of these MBAs who give PPTs about brand management) to their respective levels back in 2002. Free up that money (by eliminating those jobs) and it alone is sufficient to pay the players.
But again, I think a far superior option is to NOT give them a salary but to merely say:
"Oh! Someone wants to give you money? That's super cool. Take it. It's definitely yours. Just be sure to document it for tax purposes. (...) So we're done here, right?"
-
will be interesting to see what the ruling on the basketball scandal has on amateurism (ruled guilty, btw, good for schools, at least initially).
there is an argument to be made that the ruling supports amateurism by criminalizing under the table payments and defrauding schools of grant money. it's not necessarily a strong argument, cause the counter is to bring it above table and pay them outright. but it's another layer to the discussion.
Well seen and said.
-
The main problem is that the players are getting screwed. Too many of them aren't receiving real educations (How's that "Swahili class" at UNC, guys?). And even if they maximize their education, that token payment is often inferior to the revenue they help their schools accumulate.
imo, if they aren't receiving a real education, that's on the player as much or more than anything else. you're getting a free ride, with ridiculous amounts of help in the form of tutors and study help that's not really available to normal students. if you aren't taking advantage of that, and instead taking basket weaving, that's on you.
but i do agree that some players are missing out on the maximum marketability. which is where this comes in...
I don't think the schools even need to pay the players. Just give them permission to pursue their own market value. If someone wants to pay to put their name and face in a video game? Let them. If someone wants to put them in a commercial? Let them. If someone wants to hand them dollars? Let them.
i like this. i think i'd even be fine with allowing the kids to make a choice. remain an amateur, continue getting same current benefits free. or take their 'talents' to market, but pay for all the extra benefits.
imo, it's best compromise. give kids ability to market themselves and make a killing while in school, if that market is there. but also doesn't defraud the other students of benefits they aren't capable of getting. it's not perfect, but best idea i've seen.
-
but i do agree that some players are missing out on the maximum marketability. which is where this comes in...i like this. i think i'd even be fine with allowing the kids to make a choice. remain an amateur, continue getting same current benefits free. or take their 'talents' to market, but pay for all the extra benefits.
imo, it's best compromise. give kids ability to market themselves and make a killing while in school, if that market is there. but also doesn't defraud the other students of benefits they aren't capable of getting. it's not perfect, but best idea i've seen.
I like this. Let the kid give up his free tuition and books and food and other benefits and strike his own deal with an agent, pay the agent, pay the folks who sell jerseys and other crap
if it doesn't go real well, they got a great education regarding the real world
-
It could be a lot simpler. Once they are open to the free market, have some fraction like half of their market take (video games/commercials/BagmanBenjamins) go to tuition/fees until those are 100% accounted for. After which point, they can keep their income at a "100% - taxes" rate.
This way, no one needs to "guess right" as an 18yo or risk getting stuck with a bill and being worse off.
-
I think it's simpler as take it or leave it
ya don't like the risk, take your tuition
yer so sure yer getting screwed by the university, go for it. But, don't come back crying if it doesn't work out
why teach them they can have it both ways?
similar to declaring for the draft early - you're not an amateur any longer
-
That makes it feel like you just don't want to treat them as deserving of their true market value ... and that you will be happy with any outcome -- like the current one or a future one where they take on risk and might get boned -- where that true market value isn't 100% paid out.
It makes me curious how you'd react if you saw some guy on a message board related to your profession insist that you be paid any amount between zero dollars and less than 100% of what you are worth.
Tell me why this is different.
-
That makes it feel like you just don't want to treat them as deserving of their true market value ...
they can either take the deal offered by the university or go out and get their true market value
I have the same situation, I can work for the deal my employer has offered or I'm free to leave and test the market for my services
my boss may be paying me more than I'm worth, similar to the 4th string QB that never sees the field and really has little value, but is receiving a scholarship
If I'm a true superstar, I may be underpaid and am free to leave and test the market
my boss isn't going to continue to pay me or hold my spot until I test the market and decide I want my old job back
there are risks in life, why coddle these athletes any more than they are already coddled?
these kids only have market value because of what the university has given them
-
It's not the same. You can go elsewhere and do the same work for salary. They have *no* other path to exercise their market value. The NFL will not accept them out of HS, the only emerging semi-pro league I'm aware of is small and already saturated ... AND the one and only path they are permitted (the NCAA) exploits their lack of options by saying "these kids aren't allowed to be worth anything."
This would only be like your situation if, after graduation, you finally had market value, people wanted to pay you, but you learned that - patronizingly, despite your talents - you aren't old enough. So there is no choice to be made. Because everyone has to go into this one "training" program, and that program is not allowed (by its own arbitrary rules) to pay you - or even let you seek outside payment! - until the vast majority of your colleagues (likely including you) have passed their golden age and no longer have market value.
That, my friend, is the revenue side of the NCAA.
-
It's not the same. You can go elsewhere and do the same work for salary. They have *no* other path to exercise their market value. The NFL will not accept them out of HS, the only emerging semi-pro league I'm aware of is small and already saturated ... AND the one and only path they are permitted (the NCAA) exploits their lack of options by saying "these kids aren't allowed to be worth anything."
no other path? perhaps my type of work has a small market that is already saturated. Perhaps the big business (NFL) won't accept me out of high school because I don't have a college degree? perhaps I should have chosen another type of work?
perhaps these kids should play baseball or get a job selling cars?
perhaps if this legislation breaks NCAA Div I football the NFL will accept them out of high school or the semi-pro league will expand?
That might open up a different type of exploitation
if the kid wants to sign autographs or sell jerseys, that's fine. He can do that on his time and dime. a shoe contract with Nike? go for it.
-
These CFB kids have a gift with an annual market value approximating that of a physician or lawyer**. Yet you think one good alternative is for them to drop that and ... sell cars instead? This conversation works better if we're being more serious than that.
But let's put that aside for a second. Your last paragraph (about letting CFB players collect income for their signatures, for advertisements, for their likeness, etc.) is all that I'm pushing for. I didn't expect you to be accepting of it. Am I understanding you correctly?
.
.
**(with the biggest distinction being that unlike a physician or lawyer, most of these kids are having their lifelong highest market value peak at this young age, rather than continuously build until retirement##)
-
This is often the point in the conversation when someone asks "why do they need the income in the first place?"
When polled, the #1 answer is to help their parent/s and siblings eat and be safe. I've read that "sending some home" is what most NCAA athletes are doing with their new $2-6K stipends already.
-
I don't think the schools even need to pay the players. Just give them permission to pursue their own market value. If someone wants to pay to put their name and face in a video game? Let them. If someone wants to put them in a commercial? Let them. If someone wants to hand them dollars? Let them.
Only require that it all be properly accounted for tax purposes.
This is a fair practice on paper. I'm in favor of everyone earning what they are worth.
In reality, it is going to be far too corrupt.
The divide between the blue bloods and everyone else is already massive. Put the above practice into action and the divide becomes insurmountable.
The blue bloods have too much money to offer. They have superior boosters. For example...Mr Michigan Booster would now legally be able to pay any player for any service. Mr Michigan owns a car dealership. It just so happens that there is a TV commercial available to every 4 and 5 star recruit that signs with UM, for $60K per player. The possibilities are endless. The lower programs, who already gave a hard time matching facilities, etc, now have a greater obstacle to overcome.
The haves should just form a NFL minor league at that point.
-
This thread is gonna get long.
-
This is a fair practice on paper. I'm in favor of everyone earning what they are worth.
In reality, it is going to be far too corrupt.
The divide between the blue bloods and everyone else is already massive. Put the above practice into action and the divide becomes insurmountable.
The blue bloods have too much money to offer. They have superior boosters. For example...Mr Michigan Booster would now legally be able to pay any player for any service. Mr Michigan owns a car dealership. It just so happens that there is a TV commercial available to every 4 and 5 star recruit that signs with UM, for $60K per player. The possibilities are endless. The lower programs, who already gave a hard time matching facilities, etc, now have a greater obstacle to overcome.
The haves should just form a NFL minor league at that point.
That doesn't sound like corruption to me. It sounds like pure capitalism.
Bagmen in the current system are corrupt because they are against the rules. In a system that frees each player to seek their own market value, zero of that is corrupt/shady because it is explicitly encouraged.
In terms of pure capitalism, I won't be sad if the P5 were to further pare down because they don't trust they could compete. But that won't be a very popular opinion. So I'm back to the trusty angle from above: At least then it would be out in the open.
-
This thread is gonna get long.
Each of these threads goes longer than the last - probably because the change keeps getting closer. This time it may be at our doorstep.
-
I'll admit that many of these players don't get screwed:
- The nameless football and basketball players who sit the bench don't have a market value. Not screwed.
- Almost 100% of the non-revenue athletes also have no market value (those teams bring in less revenue than expenditure for a reason). They, also, are Not screwed.
- The all stars who stay healthy and go pro ... can end up with a market value that overwhelms the market value they had in college. Negligibly screwed.
- But the role players who are too small or slow to go Pro but are nevertheless *excellent* at this game we love and fuel our teams ... For many of *them*, this is the most market value they'll EVER be worth. Why do we "Correct that value to zero" so we can take it from them? So that Dave Brandon can hire 30 MBAs to give PPTs about "brand management." Puhlease. These are the ones it's all about. These guys are EPICALLY SCREWED.
And CFB is *nothing* without role players like that. For Michigan, this would be guys like Bryan Mone, Martavious Odoms, Vincent Smith, Tru Wilson, Ben Mason, Sean McKeon, Lawrence Marshall, maybe even Brandon Watson.
This is a great synopsis that pretty much nails the crux of the problem with the "we need to pay all college football players!"
I agree the NCAA should have no right to suppress a player going out and signing an endorsement deal and making money off their likeness, to me, allowing that is the clear solution here and we leave it at that. Yeah, that opens a recruiting Pandora's box, but at the end of the day, it's the lesser of two evils.
The VAST majority of college football players will never play professional ball, and from a "talent" standpoint, are nothing more than amateurs - their "market value" is likely no more than the value of the scholarship they receive. The thing that's ridiculous about players demanding payment is, there are hundreds of thousands of kids who would love the opportunity to play FBS ball for nothing more than the scholarship, so the "labor force" is adequately compensated or they wouldn't find people lining up to participate.
The money is available because of fan/alumni loyalty to the SCHOOLS, not the players. I realize you can't have fans without players, but this isn't the NFL, players don't stay for decades at a time. The really good players are usually gone in three years. The fact remains, if you removed those players and replaced them all with less talented players, people would still watch because it's their school, it would just be a lower level of football being played - think ivy league.
The other Pandora's box this opens is Title IX - you can't hold schools accountable for paying the revenue producing athletes, then expect them to subsidize a bunch of sports they lose money on. If the schools have to share revenue with the revenue producing athletes, then they should be able to do away with the sports that lose money (and thus take money away from the revenue producers the courts so badly want to see paid). This is why I'm a fan of allowing athletes to monetize their likeness - it largely avoids that whole mess.
-
The haves should just form a NFL minor league at that point.
Been preaching that for quite sometime now only the haves being the NFL.Let Universities get on with the business of higher education
-
Been preaching that for quite sometime now only the haves being the NFL.Let Universities get on with the business of higher education
Agreed. That would allow those who wish to just do football to be paid and just do football. Those who wish to get an education could do what they're doing now with some changes like no early entry into the NFL draft. If you choose to go the school route you have no NFL opportunity for four years even if you drop out and go to the NFL minor league.
I have a very hard time imagining the University of Michigan paying players other than a scholarship. I don't know what the going rate is now for baseball AAA minor league players but it's no where near the NFL league minimum. The education route will still be very attractive to many.
-
Just end athletic scholarships and be done with it.
-
But let's put that aside for a second. Your last paragraph (about letting CFB players collect income for their signatures, for advertisements, for their likeness, etc.) is all that I'm pushing for. I didn't expect you to be accepting of it. Am I understanding you correctly?
.
sure, I'm for it. I really don't think many kids are gonna make a bunch of money. There will be a few and it will be unfair to their teammates and other athletes on campus.
So, the star QB is making some good coin. Is he allowed to share it with the O-line and WRs?
-
The importance of a major is powerful. So much that Bachelor's degree holders in some majors can earn more than those with a graduate degree. We found that the highest-paid majors were among the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, and the lowest earning majors were with early childhood education and human services and community organization. The full report includes a more detailed analysis of the popularity of majors and educational and labor market outcomes by major.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/#full-report (https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/#full-report)
-
The importance of a major is powerful. So much that Bachelor's degree holders in some majors can earn more than those with a graduate degree. We found that the highest-paid majors were among the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, and the lowest earning majors were with early childhood education and human services and community organization. The full report includes a more detailed analysis of the popularity of majors and educational and labor market outcomes by major.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/#full-report (https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/#full-report)
The sad thing is that somebody(s) got paid to do this study. Seriously. That's STUPID.
-
I'm not a fan of "studies" or "surveys". Especially if they are funded by tax dollars.
as your point, usually very obvious results
my point is that many of these exploited kids wouldn't have this opportunity w/o athletics. It's a very valuable opportunity if treated properly.
-
There are ways to do this that are very fair and maintain a "spirit" of amateurism, like allowing players to be paid, but have that money put in trust and allow universities to operate on behalf of students and help manage their bank accounts. But colleges have been motivated by greed and racism instead of doing right by their players. I love college football, but it is sickening to think how many people have been used and discarded, their money taken, under the guise of amateurism.
-
There are ways to do this that are very fair and maintain a "spirit" of amateurism, like allowing players to be paid, but have that money put in trust and allow universities to operate on behalf of students and help manage their bank accounts. But colleges have been motivated by greed and racism instead of doing right by their players. I love college football, but it is sickening to think how many people have been used and discarded, their money taken, under the guise of amateurism.
It's a good post and I'm open to the idea of a "trust." Of course, that risks families who need money urgently not getting it until too late, but it would still be overall so much better that I'd leap at the change and be in "we'll cross the next bridge later" mode about the players' families who could be urgently rescued (be it food, health or safety) by their son's extra thousands of dollars.
(Note: I'm specifically talking about the times when the son wants to send it home above all else)
-
the biggest problem i see is that when it comes (and it is coming, i can't see anyway this doesn't end up with some type of payment system) i think we're going to go full bore open payment/no scholarship. the pendulum will swing fully to the other side, as is tradition in the overtly reactionary society we live in now. which will be disastrous, imo. especially if we're doing it under the guise of fair play and increased parity.
i'm afraid it will unlevel the field even more (i know, har har, that funny coming from a bama fan).
second, imo it will hurt, not help, most players. i mean the vast majority. even for bama, most players aren't going to have the name recognition to make a decent living while in school if they have to pay for tuition, room/board, food, clothing, tutors, etc. the big names, (tua, hurts, jeudy, etc.) will be fine. better than fine. even the middle ground players will get some endorsements, but i doubt it'll be that much. maybe a few hundred to do a commercial or 2. another hundred to do an auto session. but i have serious doubt's they can make enough to cover their expenses without the benefits of their scholarship. and then there's the lower end players who won't even get a shot at endorsements most time. and that's at bama, arguably the most crazed fanbase out there. and don't make the mistake thinking the bama alumni don't have the means to support players. we might not have the biggest endowment or the most wealthy fanbase, but we've got our fair share of heavy hitters with more than enough means to pay those guys (and have in the past, lol)
that's why i like the choice model. i haven't hashed it out fully, so i'm sure it has some flaws i haven't thought of, maybe even major ones (probably). but so far, it's the best suggestion with a decent middle ground.
-
It's a good post and I'm open to the idea of a "trust." Of course, that risks families who need money urgently not getting it until too late, but it would still be overall so much better that I'd leap at the change and be in "we'll cross the next bridge later" mode about the players' families who could be urgently rescued (be it food, health or safety) by their son's extra thousands of dollars.
(Note: I'm specifically talking about the times when the son wants to send it home above all else)
fwiw, i think there is already a provision to allow schools to help take care of emergency situations regarding families. there is a process they have to follow, but i know there is a way for coaches/boosters to help players and their families now, if they file the proper paper work. we had an issue a couple years back with an assistant giving a kid a couple hundred under this rule, but there was some kind of problem with the paperwork (timeliness or something, i'll see if i can find it).
-
fwiw, i think there is already a provision to allow schools to help take care of emergency situations regarding families. there is a process they have to follow, but i know there is a way for coaches/boosters to help players and their families now, if they file the proper paper work. we had an issue a couple years back with an assistant giving a kid a couple hundred under this rule, but there was some kind of problem with the paperwork (timeliness or something, i'll see if i can find it).
That's great! I had no idea. A first web search came up empty. Any idea of a good buzzword (some kind of lawyery NCAA jargon) to help find it?
-
I agree about the "Choice Model":
despite these changes being inevitable and the potential for more justice, some of the predicted outcomes are DISASTROUS.
Requires more careful planning than we've already managed here, and from listening to conference and AD administrators, I'd argue that we are already far ahead of them in average thinking.
Scary.
-
That's great! I had no idea. A first web search came up empty. Any idea of a good buzzword (some kind of lawyery NCAA jargon) to help find it?
did a quick google and best i can find is the ncaa special assistance fund. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tem/genrel/auto_pdf/ncaa-spec-asst-qual.pdf (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tem/genrel/auto_pdf/ncaa-spec-asst-qual.pdf)
the only thing that gives me pause is i thought the situation i referred to above involved the family being in need, not really the student. but i could be mis-remembering. but the link above doesn't specify family needs (doesn't completely rule it out either, but it reads like it's not really included unless the student athlete is directly effected.)
-
How about if all the schools get rid of fluff majors? You know, the ones that only those professors care about? I mean, if you can't gain employment with a certain degree, why offer it?
-
How about if all the schools get rid of fluff majors? You know, the ones that only those professors care about? I mean, if you can't gain employment with a certain degree, why offer it?
i'm not sure doing away with them is the right call. maybe being more realistic and limiting the numbers enrolled. look at the ones mentioned above (early childhood education and human services and community organization), they're all necessary for a healthy society, and do provide an opportunity for gainful employment, just not for as many as are enrolled. same for history, writing (non-journalists) and art degrees (my wife is artist, self employed, does ok).
i can't think of many degrees that don't have a potential for gainful employment, though some (many?) are limited opportunities.
as a society, we need to be honest with ourselves, and stop telling ourselves everyone should go to college. no, they shouldn't. but we'd also be doing ourselves a disservice to completely remove those majors. we need to start limiting our student populations overall, and specifically within those specialized, but not in demand, fields.
-
Is there any likely way this ends well?
I doubt it.
-
That's where the community colleges come in to play. You can (right now) get a $60K/year job with a two year AAS in manufacturing technology from our local college. There are currently 9500 (and growing) open jobs in that field, within our college's district boundaries, that cannot be filled due to a shortage of workers.
$60K/year with no debt, or $12-15/hr, with $150K debt, to flip burgers with that History of Greece degree?
-
Is there any likely way this ends well?
I doubt it.
The only chance would be for the NFL to start a viable (and well-funded) national minor league system.
-
i'm not sure doing away with them is the right call. maybe being more realistic and limiting the numbers enrolled. look at the ones mentioned above (early childhood education and human services and community organization), they're all necessary for a healthy society, and do provide an opportunity for gainful employment, just not for as many as are enrolled. same for history, writing (non-journalists) and art degrees (my wife is artist, self employed, does ok).
i can't think of many degrees that don't have a potential for gainful employment, though some (many?) are limited opportunities.
as a society, we need to be honest with ourselves, and stop telling ourselves everyone should go to college. no, they shouldn't. but we'd also be doing ourselves a disservice to completely remove those majors. we need to start limiting our student populations overall, and specifically within those specialized, but not in demand, fields.
I was nodding along thinking "yeah, yep, yea!" but then recalled conversations in my field. That there are just too many physical science majors, too. At least too many who choose graduate school for the number of good jobs out there. To the extent that, on one hand, maybe the problem is that far too many kids are enrolled in college. Full stop.
However: While it is jarring how many students earn physical science degrees but end up working outside their dream realm, too often just to behave like pipetting robots, there is a counter-benefit:
Perhaps no more at any prior time in human history than now do we desperately need a human population with scientific literacy. This is a rapidly growing era of scientific revolutions that need to be consistently parsed from misinformation. Even or especially by non-experts.
And no matter what side one's opinions originate, when it comes to hot button topics (like cloning, evolution, anthropogenic climate change, stem cell biology, vaccines, GMO foods), society can only benefit from maximizing its skills of emotionlessly/methodically reasoning through things scientifically.
I'm now curious of the break-even point there, in terms of societal good. At which point, for example, do the societal benefits of a thing like scientific literacy outweigh the societal damage of this many people finishing in careers they feel are beneath their level of training?
-
I was nodding along thinking "yeah, yep, yea!" but then recalled conversations in my field. That there are just too many physical science majors, too. At least too many who choose graduate school for the number of good jobs out there. To the extent that, on one hand, maybe the problem is that far too many kids are enrolled in college. Full stop.
Having said that: While it is sad how many students earn physical science degrees but end up working outside their dream realm, often just as fancy pipetting robots, there is a counter-benefit: Perhaps no more at any time in human history than now so we desperately need a human population with scientific literacy. This is a rapidly growing era of scientific revolutions that need to be parsed from misinformation. And no matter what side one's "opinions" stem from, when it comes to hot button topics (like cloning, evolution, climate change, stem cell biology, vaccines, GMO foods), society can only benefit from maximizing its skills of emotionlessly/methodically reasoning through things scientifically.
I'm curious of the break-even point there, in terms of societal good. At which point, for example, do the societal benefits of a thing like scientific literacy outweigh the societal damage of this many people finishing in careers they feel are beneath their level of training?
It's sad that High Schools only require 3 years of math and 2 years of science. At the same time they require 4 years of English, 3 years of social "science" and one fine art credit. Who the F writes these curricula? I think I know...
Math was only 1 year (!) when I was in HS.
-
The only chance would be for the NFL to start a viable (and well-funded) national minor league system.
I thought they already had.
-
I didn't even take Physics until I was an undergrad. Seriously.
Of course much of the thinking was similar to calculus, which I did take in HS. But still.
-
imo, hs should also require at least a couple years of things like shop and home ec. and in many cases, like around here, not only is it not required, it's not even offered anymore. it's disgraceful.
-
calculus was not offered in my high school
but, that was back in the dark ages
-
The idea that there is an easy solution to this is probably the worst of all.
The NCAA's rules are made by the member institutions voting. It's not just 65 or so P5 programs, its hundreds of schools that make up the NCAA. They don't all have the same interests. Their common interest, though, is to create competitive athletic programs. Those programs offer a lot to their students, both the athletes and the non-athletes. And it isn't athletic department revenue that drives most of these schools' interest in athletics--it's recruiting for general enrollment. To give but one example, that's why Donna Shalala invested so heavily in the Wisconsin athletic department. It wasn't to make the athletic department more profitable, it was to raise the University's exposure and profile.
But how to make a fair athletic competition isn't the same as how to fairly compensate the participants. Most of these participants won't be professional athletes, and most of them have a negligible impact on revenue for the athletic department. Even in the "revenue sports"--and even for the programs making money on those sports (not all of them)--figuring out how much impact the second-string linebacker has (good enough to see the field a lot, but not a star) isn't easy. And it's different from school to school.
So just let them strike their own private deals? Seems like a good idea, but for the non-powerhouse schools they seriously worry (with good reason) about their ability to compete for those players, which makes the competition less fair. Without fair competition, the sport doesn't work.
Does that mean there isn't already imbalance? Heck no. There is. The question is how to balance it all, and the answers--again--aren't easy.
-
I thought they already had.
What, in Europe?
Anyway, fairness... Nothing is fair, in anything.
-
Take piece of hay out of his mouth and drawls "SEC SEC SEC".
-
What, in Europe?
Anyway, fairness... Nothing is fair, in anything.
You're right. But I don't think anyone is asking for absolute fairness. Just the same amount of fairness that everyone in a capitalistic society sees.
Well ... and we're asking for the NCAA to stop violating US antitrust law. That's the main driver here. None of this would be happening if the NCAA weren't (pretty consistently) losing in court.
-
Differing admissions standards from school to school is not fair either.
-
And different schools on different semester/trimester/quarter systems, too. I believe some teams don't even have class until after Week 1, whereas many have class before the season starts.
But that's not the kind of fairness that needs to stop. That's just normal everyday "how it is."
The parts that violate US law, on the other hand, will need to change. And the end effect will be to make CFB unfair in the same way the capitalism can be fair ... rather than unfair in a different or extra way.
-
That doesn't sound like corruption to me. It sounds like pure capitalism.
Bagmen in the current system are corrupt because they are against the rules. In a system that frees each player to seek their own market value, zero of that is corrupt/shady because it is explicitly encouraged.
In terms of pure capitalism, I won't be sad if the P5 were to further pare down because they don't trust they could compete. But that won't be a very popular opinion. So I'm back to the trusty angle from above: At least then it would be out in the open.
Pure capitalism doesn't work in sports. That's why every professional league has a draft, has a salary cap, limited roster sizes, etc.
The value of the product depends on some semblance of level competition. Otherwise in the professional leagues, the big-money markets would just pay more to the best players, win every year, increasing their payroll every year as they win more and more, and then ratings would tank because nobody would think it's fair.
Today, college football already has a HUGE natural imbalance, because there's no draft. You get players by recruiting them. That immediately gives a built-in advantage to the helmet teams over non-helmet, to P5 over G5, to G5 over FCS, etc.
Most of the changes we've tried to institute over the course of the history of CFB have been to try to blunt that. Scholarship limits is a huge example of this, because we don't want Michigan and OSU stockpiling all the best players in the midwest so that Purdue and Indiana can't field even remotely competitive teams.
If you start allowing uncontrolled money, you'll see that imbalance get worse.
And if it gets bad enough, eventually it'll destroy the sport.
-
The VAST majority of college football players will never play professional ball, and from a "talent" standpoint, are nothing more than amateurs - their "market value" is likely no more than the value of the scholarship they receive. The thing that's ridiculous about players demanding payment is, there are hundreds of thousands of kids who would love the opportunity to play FBS ball for nothing more than the scholarship, so the "labor force" is adequately compensated or they wouldn't find people lining up to participate.
Untrue. Yes, many of these players will NEVER have value at the NFL or NBA level. But that doesn't mean for a second that their market value is only as large as their scholarship.
If the schools had the ability to try to use financial incentives to recruit them, the value of many players would be above their scholarship. A low 4* or high 3*, the sort of players that are marginal to ever get drafted, would be of great value to basically every P5 program. Definitely above scholarship level.
-
Perhaps no more at any prior time in human history than now do we desperately need a human population with scientific literacy. This is a rapidly growing era of scientific revolutions that need to be consistently parsed from misinformation. Even or especially by non-experts.
And no matter what side one's opinions originate, when it comes to hot button topics (like cloning, evolution, anthropogenic climate change, stem cell biology, vaccines, GMO foods), society can only benefit from maximizing its skills of emotionlessly/methodically reasoning through things scientifically.
I wish journalism was more like patent law. I.e. to be a patent lawyer, you need to get a degree in STEM, then go to law school, then an additional year of patent law specific schooling. Essentially they assume that to be a patent lawyer, you need to technical FIRST, and a lawyer SECOND.
I worry that journalism isn't like this at all. People go to school for journalism, then get jobs writing about topics they have NO earthly understanding of. Wouldn't it be better if they had degrees in some sort of actual subject matter, and then learned the journalism on top of it?
Now, I'm not saying get a 4 year degree and then go to 4 years of J-school, like a patent lawyer. But journalists would be a hell of a lot more useful if they learned a field first and became a journalist second.
(Granted, anyone who got a STEM degree would probably be lured away by big salaries before they became a STEM-focused journalist, so there's a natural barrier in there too.)
-
I was just going to say... you wouldn't have many journalists if they actually needed to have education-based knowledge on what they write.
-
Differing admissions standards from school to school is not fair either.
this is a different argument, besides, those schools are limited themselves, not an outside force (ncaa). same with the scholarship issue. the ncaa has a scholarship limit, some use it to full advantage, others limit themselves as they see fit.
note, i'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not an unfair advantage derived by an outside driving force. it's self-limited.
-
Pure capitalism doesn't work in sports. That's why every professional league has a draft, has a salary cap, limited roster sizes, etc.
The value of the product depends on some semblance of level competition. Otherwise in the professional leagues, the big-money markets would just pay more to the best players, win every year, increasing their payroll every year as they win more and more, and then ratings would tank because nobody would think it's fair.
Today, college football already has a HUGE natural imbalance, because there's no draft. You get players by recruiting them. That immediately gives a built-in advantage to the helmet teams over non-helmet, to P5 over G5, to G5 over FCS, etc.
Most of the changes we've tried to institute over the course of the history of CFB have been to try to blunt that. Scholarship limits is a huge example of this, because we don't want Michigan and OSU stockpiling all the best players in the midwest so that Purdue and Indiana can't field even remotely competitive teams.
If you start allowing uncontrolled money, you'll see that imbalance get worse.
And if it gets bad enough, eventually it'll destroy the sport.
It is an important note of caution. However, stiffing the players is unsavory too. Between that and the coming legal reckoning for the NCAA, we need to find an acceptable balance. The problem is twofold: no obvious solutions ... and we need to overcome that fast.
-
this is a different argument, besides, those schools are limited themselves, not an outside force (ncaa). same with the scholarship issue. the ncaa has a scholarship limit, some use it to full advantage, others limit themselves as they see fit.
note, i'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not an unfair advantage derived by an outside driving force. it's self-limited.
The premise is that little Johnny really wanted to go to Northwestern to be a Wildcat and play football, but he instead went to Kentucky to be a Wildcat and play football. All because Northwestern wouldn't let him in. NOT FAIR!!!
-
It is an important note of caution. However, stiffing the players is unsavory too. Between that and the coming legal reckoning for the NCAA, we need to find an acceptable balance. The problem is twofold: no obvious solutions ... and we need to overcome that fast.
An NFL minor league is a completely obvious solution. That, or they all just go to the SEC (that's for you CDawg).
-
I used to work closely with patent attorneys. Their "STEM" acumen in the main was rather limited. And they don't take an extra year of law school.
A person can also become a patent agent without law school. The only technical difference is you can't litigate in court, which is rare for a patent attorney anyway. You can file and process patent applications for other folks.
A journalist gets paid to turn out "copy" of one sort or another. They don't get paid extra for turning out solidly researched accurate copy.
And of course in "STEM" matters, they are largely writing for people without "STEM" backgrounds.
I used to wonder why I had to take so much English and History and SS and languages, while a Social Studies major required virtually no math or science. I took a class in Astronomy that was filled with education majors. The good news is that many of them were really good looking, and I almost ended up married to one of them. The bad news is they needed a lot of help passing the tests.
In the US, almost 70% of HS grads attend college. In Europe, it's basely half of that. They stream kids into real college prep early and often. I fear our egalitarian notions that everyone should go to college and buy a home can get us into trouble at times.
-
It is an important note of caution. However, stiffing the players is unsavory too. Between that and the coming legal reckoning for the NCAA, we need to find an acceptable balance. The problem is twofold: no obvious solutions ... and we need to overcome that fast.
I'm not saying that stiffing the players is the best option. I think we have a broken system, and as you say, no obvious solutions.
If you make every incoming CFB freshman a "free agent", it'll result in a much more unbalanced system than we have today, because on top of the big helmets already having a recruiting advantage due to their history and helmet, they'll have bigger booster support than your typical mid-tier P5 school. I'll bet Oregon or Oklahoma State will be improved though.
But unless you have a draft for CFB players coming out of high school, which will never happen [and shouldn't IMHO], just adding money is going to screw the less-prominent schools.
-
I took a class in Astronomy that was filled with education majors. The good news is that many of them were really good looking, and I almost ended up married to one of them. The bad news is they needed a lot of help passing the tests.
Well, to be fair I'm sure they were just waiting for their own sign to be covered.
"What is this crap? When are we going to cover Pisces?"
-
I wish journalism was more like patent law. I.e. to be a patent lawyer, you need to get a degree in STEM, then go to law school, then an additional year of patent law specific schooling. Essentially they assume that to be a patent lawyer, you need to technical FIRST, and a lawyer SECOND.
I worry that journalism isn't like this at all. People go to school for journalism, then get jobs writing about topics they have NO earthly understanding of. Wouldn't it be better if they had degrees in some sort of actual subject matter, and then learned the journalism on top of it?
Now, I'm not saying get a 4 year degree and then go to 4 years of J-school, like a patent lawyer. But journalists would be a hell of a lot more useful if they learned a field first and became a journalist second.
(Granted, anyone who got a STEM degree would probably be lured away by big salaries before they became a STEM-focused journalist, so there's a natural barrier in there too.)
As Badge has pointed out, economics. Journalism doesn’t pay much. If you had to get eight years of school to do it, it would be more of a poor life choice than it is now.
Now the traditional model is, journalists talk to experts, synthesize and write stories, which means they’re kind of at the mercy of their experts.
There’s also the issue of a death of trust in expertise. Like if all the sports writers knew a crapload about football, they’d be telling you why much of what you think is the QB’s fault is not the QB’s fault. I’ve seen that story, and most people just get crabby about it and don’t listen.
(There’s also the issue most journalists are generalists becuase of the structure of the industry. There’s a few science-focused journalists out there, but I can’t comment on their quality)
-
The premise is that little Johnny really wanted to go to Northwestern to be a Wildcat and play football, but he instead went to Kentucky to be a Wildcat and play football. All because Northwestern wouldn't let him in. NOT FAIR!!!
i wanted to go to alabama and play football. instead i went to alabama and got an accounting degree. not fair, indeed.
-
Ed Zachery. These kids want what's fair? put down the football and get on with life
-
As Badge has pointed out, economics. Journalism doesn’t pay much. If you had to get eight years of school to do it, it would be more of a poor life choice than it is now.
Not saying 8 years... But maybe you should go through J-school with an "emphasis", i.e. actually have some formal schooling in a topic rather than just a general liberal arts base.
Now the traditional model is, journalists talk to experts, synthesize and write stories, which means they’re kind of at the mercy of their experts.
In order to accurately restate complicated technical material for laymen, it's imperative to actually have a pretty solid understanding of that material.
It's why one of the greatest teaching methods is to teach someone something, and then have them explain it back to you. That process of explaining it back to you will prove whether or not they actually understand it.
I don't think many of today's journalists are capable of this.
There’s also the issue of a death of trust in expertise. Like if all the sports writers knew a crapload about football, they’d be telling you why much of what you think is the QB’s fault is not the QB’s fault. I’ve seen that story, and most people just get crabby about it and don’t listen.
Agreed. There's too much "tl;dr" in the world.
People don't want nuance and detailed explanation. So yes, part of the reason journalism got this way is that the consumer isn't particularly discerning.
-
The concept of giving the consumer what she wants is very relevant in this discussion.
Posters around here want depth and detail and check "facts", along with chili with no beans. "We" are oddballs.
Have a little faith, Baby.
-
Hey listen kid they haven't got you back in the nut ward do they?
-
Um, well, "Define nut ward".
What's with the negative waves?
-
Nubbz is a bit sensative to the term "oddball"
only he knows why
-
calculus was not offered in my high school
but, that was back in the dark ages
Pre-Algebra was and you didn't take that either :D.I know I didn't take much math after that,saved face with the rest of the subjects
-
hey, I scored a dern fine grade in algebra or pre-algebra or senior math or whatever they called it back then
it was actually called senior math - the teacher was in her late 60's and really hadn't converted to this stuff as she referred to it as "new" math.
-
We had calculus in our HS in 1972. I made straight A's. I learned I had to take it again at UGA, which seemed like a waste to me, but it was a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. I really struggled with it in college. I think we spend two days on the basics and went from there, a lot of stuff like Green's Theorem.
Some of the kids in the class had never had any calculus and still did well. I think that was the smartest class I've ever been part of, not including me of course. It was an Honors Class, and that was part of it.
I went on and took DiffEq which was not an honors class and it was pretty easy.
-
I recollect thinking school was not half bad if it weren't for these "tests" and "grades".
In grad school, we had about a year and a half of courses, and then no more classes. It was worse.
I did not like grad school at all, thought about quitting many times, but had no clue what I'd do then.
Just sort of hung in there until it was over.
-
I was actually much more interested in my graduate courses than at least half of my college courses, which is part of the reason I did much better in them (3.8 GPA in my graduate program compared to 2.7 at Michigan). My graduate program is also directly related to my career, whereas back in college, I didn't really know what I wanted to do afterwards.
-
I was fine with the grad school courses, just not what followed. The courses were decent, and we had a grading system that was H P L F, and you had to really mess up to get an L or F, and they didn't award Hs (High Pass), and we didn't have GPAs anywhere. You just got a P for every course and moved on. I had to adjust to semesters instead of quarters.
We had one course, first semester, called "Bonding", and I swear I did not understand anything at all, in the class, or in the book. I figured I was toast, and the first test came and I did poorly, very poorly, but somehow had the 3rd highest grade in the class. I realized nobody else understood it either. I don't know why it was being taught at that level, none of us were prepared for it. The book was awful.
I basically figured out how to work the problems without having any clue what was behind the problems. P.
-
We had calculus in our HS in 1972. I made straight A's.
Oh we had Trig,Calculus and Physics - I wasn't going near the shit.Passed 1 or 2 classes more after Algebra - Business Math or some such.Backed away from Geometry like a crayfish fending off a bass - hated Postulates & Theorems,at least at the time
-
I never graduated from Iowa,I was only there for two terms - Truman's and Eisenhower's. - Alex Karras