Here is the link:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-ow...s-brewing/

(06-07-2016 10:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They need to have something ready, in their back pocket, in the (unlikely) case that the impending court cases blow up the current defacto NFL D-league of major college football programs, by forcing them to pay players.

In that case, the schools will go the DIII route instead of being forced to go against their wills.


On the plus side, now those players from poor communities in southern states can indeed get paid -- something like $30k a year, and without having to go to those pesky classes to get that stupid degree. Their lives will probably end up much better.

Maybe. But I take a look at the NBA D-League and see that few high schoolers are taking that route, instead choose to 'endure' that single year of college. Obviously there are some non-tangible benefits that the NCAA still provides.

I fully expected the article to address the possibility of players coming straight into a D-league from high school, bypassing college entirely. But nada.

While there are probably many people in academia who would prefer that players who have no real interest in getting an education have an alternate route to the NFL, I imagine there are some schools who realize their long standing dominance of FBS would be threatened by such a change.

(06-07-2016 10:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Maybe. But I take a look at the NBA D-League and see that few high schoolers are taking that route, instead choose to 'endure' that single year of college. Obviously there are some non-tangible benefits that the NCAA still provides.

Actually the answer is zero. No players have entered the D League (prior to entering a draft) voluntarily, and all did so after they were kicked out of their college. None have attempted to simply sign with the D league and wait out the one year waiting period (by choice).

Actually the limiting factor is the inability of the NFL to do ANYTHING that does not directly generate dollars. They don't do investment moves. It has to pay them now, or they won't do it. Otherwise NFL Europe would NEVER have been shut down, and the whole idea of expansion to Europe might be more than just a phantom pipedream living in Roger Goodell's head.

(06-07-2016 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Their hand might be forced, though, if major college football blows up because of the "make players employees" zealots.

That would not blow up college football. That is posturing - that would be biting your hand to spite your face. Those programs would not give up a hundred million plus per year, simply because their expenses went up by a few million. That would be idiotic on an epic level.

(06-07-2016 11:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Their hand might be forced, though, if major college football blows up because of the "make players employees" zealots.

That would not blow up college football. That is posturing - that would be biting your hand to spite your face. Those programs would not give up a hundred million plus per year, simply because their expenses went up by a few million. That would be idiotic on an epic level.

Here's what WOULD blow up college football - at least, as we know it - an NFL D-league which (1) takes players straight out of high school, (2) pays them good money, (3) and plays on Saturdays.

Game, set, match.

NFL Europe model stateside with 8 teams with geographical NFL affiliates would be the way to go. It would give spring time live programming to NFL Network. The biggest key IMO is to make the affiliates make sense. NFL Europe had players from every team. You followed but you didn't have a real rooting interest.

(06-07-2016 11:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Their hand might be forced, though, if major college football blows up because of the "make players employees" zealots.

That would not blow up college football. That is posturing - that would be biting your hand to spite your face. Those programs would not give up a hundred million plus per year, simply because their expenses went up by a few million. That would be idiotic on an epic level.

Here's what WOULD blow up college football - at least, as we know it - an NFL D-league which (1) takes players straight out of high school, (2) pays them good money, (3) and plays on Saturdays.

Game, set, match.

I am all for it.

That way college football can be played by real "student-athletes" (sic) who:

1) Go to class

2) Are more like regular students

3) Graduate from the university in large percentages


Then, the fiction of "student-athlete" would have a lot more validity and the other players who are not really interested in being college students/graduates can go play in the development league.

(06-07-2016 11:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Their hand might be forced, though, if major college football blows up because of the "make players employees" zealots.

That would not blow up college football. That is posturing - that would be biting your hand to spite your face. Those programs would not give up a hundred million plus per year, simply because their expenses went up by a few million. That would be idiotic on an epic level.

First, No school is producing a hundred million dollar profit. Not even close. Even the top programs are making less than $30 million/year in profit. And that's only in good years.

Second, revenue will go way down if they start paying players. There's a large number of people (including me) who won't show any interest in college sports if it starts paying players. If it's just another pro league, I'd prefer to watch the real thing.

Third, universities, contrary to popular belief, make a lot of decisions that would be financially insane for a for-profit company to make. For example, Purdue's last president made a decision to raise admissions standards for in-state students so that there would be more room for profitable out-of-state students. The BOT fired her, largely because of that decision. The current president hasn't raised tuition since he assumed office in 2013, despite the fact that the market would easily support it. Simply put, academic institutions actually value a little thing called academics.

(06-07-2016 11:40 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Their hand might be forced, though, if major college football blows up because of the "make players employees" zealots.

That would not blow up college football. That is posturing - that would be biting your hand to spite your face. Those programs would not give up a hundred million plus per year, simply because their expenses went up by a few million. That would be idiotic on an epic level.

First, No school is producing a hundred million dollar profit. Not even close. Even the top programs are making less than $30 million/year in profit. And that's only in good years.

Did I say a hundred million profit? No. I said give up a hundred million dollars - also to note college sports are the most affective marketing for colleges, so a lot of the expenses would not automatically disappear just because college football changed. so the change in revenue is what is important. Secondly, the added "expense" of paying every revenue sport participant a salary, let' say $30,000 - 35,000 per year, is STILL less than $4 million per school. Or as I said, expenses going up by a few million dollars. Third, I mean if you firmly believe that college attendance and revenue would dwindle because players were paid, when polling shows a majority of the public thinks they should be compensated anyway, I mean you have a right to your opinion, but there is nothing to back that up.

Ha. Right, you'll only have to pay the superstar players $30k per year.

Good thing head coaching salaries have basically stayed flat! Without that example, I might be inclined to think college player "employee" salaries would skyrocket just as fast ...


Terry,

We already have that, in DIII football. That's where the Big Ten (and I'd hope Notre Dame) would be headed if this "employee" crap ever goes through.

(06-07-2016 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ha. Right, you'll only have to pay the superstar players $30k per year.

Good thing head coaching salaries have basically stayed flat! Without that example, I might be inclined to think college player "employee" salaries would skyrocket just as fast ...


Terry,

We already have that, in DIII football. That's where the Big Ten (and I'd hope Notre Dame) would be headed if this "employee" crap ever goes through.

I know that you want to believe that to be the case, but NFW. The Big Ten will pay players just as well as the SEC if that system ever comes to fruition (no matter what Jim Delany might say on this issue publicly as of now). It's neither right nor wrong, but it's just the way that it is.

(06-07-2016 11:11 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Actually the limiting factor is the inability of the NFL to do ANYTHING that does not directly generate dollars. They don't do investment moves. It has to pay them now, or they won't do it. Otherwise NFL Europe would NEVER have been shut down, and the whole idea of expansion to Europe might be more than just a phantom pipedream living in Roger Goodell's head.

I've always felt it was the fear that the an NFL D-league was because it would emulate minor league baseball more so than CFB. If there was some guarantee that 8-12 teams would generate Michigan or Texas like profits, such a program would already exist.

I tend to think that if the scope was limited and the games were played during the spring that the NFL-D could get a better return than the dream of expanding the league outside of the US.

Frank,

Nope. Mega schools already spend way too much money on the sport, trying to keep up with facilities and coaching salaries. Add player salaries on top of that, you're talking a death spiral.

No, better to get out of the game at that point. People will still come to watch Big Ten teams play. It's a tradition. Heck, why do you think 40k+ still come to watch Minnesota play???

(06-07-2016 11:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  I fully expected the article to address the possibility of players coming straight into a D-league from high school, bypassing college entirely. But nada.

While there are probably many people in academia who would prefer that players who have no real interest in getting an education have an alternate route to the NFL, I imagine there are some schools who realize their long standing dominance of FBS would be threatened by such a change.

Agreed. The NFL isn't looking for players to bypass college. Any D-League would really be about giving developing quarterbacks, lower round draft picks and scout team players more playing time.

I do think they are onto something, though, with the idea of playing all league games in one place, instead of spreading them around the country. Make it essentially a studio game, which doesn't rely on fan support.

Anybody who thinks people wouldn't watch football played exclusively in the spring on weeknights is badly underestimating the public's appetite for the sport, IMO. What they would need is for young players to develop the kind of star power the league thrives on. College football gives them that now. But if you put these young players in small towns like the NBA D-league, they may develop skills, but they won't be as marketable.

The NFL could still control salary costs by limiting direct access to the big league, as they now do by requiring players to be three years out of high school. And the players would benefit by playing in pro style offenses instead of the spread offenses that are becoming almost ubiquitous in college today.

Some combination of players right out of high school, plus some older players who aren't quite ready, would work best, IMO. The biggest benefit is the training ground for coaches, GMs and officials.

This doesn't have to cost a fortune for the NFL. It could even make a few bucks.

(06-07-2016 12:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Frank,

Nope. Mega schools already spend way too much money on the sport, trying to keep up with facilities and coaching salaries. Add player salaries on top of that, you're talking a death spiral.

No, better to get out of the game at that point. People will still come to watch Big Ten teams play. It's a tradition. Heck, why do you think 40k+ still come to watch Minnesota play???

They're still coming to watch Minnesota play because they play at the highest tier within their level of college football. That's why G5 schools make piddly compared to the P5 and why FCS and lower level schools make no revenue at all. Talent absolutely matters. That's why college football and basketball make multitudes more revenue than college baseball and hockey (where a lot more top talent high school grads are siphoned off into the minor leagues). The Big Ten isn't going through a process of signing multibillion dollar TV contracts with billions of dollars of other revenue and then showing up with Division III talent. Anyone that believes that is not paying attention to the dynamics of college football. College football has been professionalized for a long time - I have no idea why people keep denying that this is the case. "Semi-pro football" is not a dirty word to me - instead, it's the reality of what college football has been for decades. Either go all in and make as much money as possible or stop the farce. The Big Ten (and every other conference) cannot have it both ways.

Wow. I'm surprised to see so many major figures volleying this about. Very interesting.

It's gotta be in spring though. There is a serious appetite for more football in spring (see NCAA spring practice interest and NFL draft reporting for proof).

It doesn't seem like it's going to replace college for the meatheads though. It should. I wish it would (sorry SEC fans). But I doubt they want to be THAT developmental in their approach.

(06-07-2016 12:28 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Wow. I'm surprised to see so many major figures volleying this about. Very interesting.

It's gotta be in spring though. There is a serious appetite for more football in spring (see NCAA spring practice interest and NFL draft reporting for proof).

The problem with Spring is, it is not meant to be a new league, it is a developmental league. You can't have players practicing and playing full games in the spring, then have them come in the fall and play more. Plus it sort of defeats the purpose of what they were aiming for in the article, which was to have a league that has ready made, up to speed talent, that is already in football shape, already practicing, and receiving current NFL level coaching.