Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #1
P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
P5 vs. P5 bowl games start today, here's the list.

Dec. 26
HEART OF DALLAS BOWL: West Virginia vs. Utah
CACTUS BOWL: UCLA vs. Kansas State

Dec. 27
PINSTRIPE BOWL: Iowa vs. Boston College
FOSTER FARMS BOWL: Purdue vs. Arizona
TEXAS BOWL: Missouri vs. Texas

Dec. 28
CAMPING WORLD BOWL: Virginia Tech vs. Oklahoma State
ALAMO BOWL: Stanford vs. TCU
HOLIDAY BOWL: Michigan State vs. Washington State

Dec. 29
BELK BOWL: Wake Forest vs. Texas A&M
SUN BOWL: Arizona State vs. NC State
MUSIC CITY BOWL: Northwestern vs. Kentucky
COTTON BOWL CLASSIC: USC vs. Ohio State

Dec. 30
TAXSLAYER BOWL: Mississippi State vs. Louisville
FIESTA BOWL: Washington vs. Penn State
ORANGE BOWL: Wisconsin vs. Miami

Jan. 1
OUTBACK BOWL: South Carolina vs. Michigan
CITRUS BOWL: LSU vs. Notre Dame
ROSE BOWL: Oklahoma vs. Georgia
SUGAR BOWL: Clemson vs. Alabama

Jan. 8
CFP NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
12-26-2017 03:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,726
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location:
Post: #2
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
Big Ten bowl matchups could’ve been more intriguing. .

Outback: Michigan St vs South Carolina
Holiday: Northwestern vs Washington St
DickRod Bowl: Michigan vs Arizona
Music City: Purdue vs Kentucky (border states)
12-26-2017 05:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #3
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-26-2017 05:35 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Big Ten bowl matchups could’ve been more intriguing. .

Outback: Michigan St vs South Carolina
Holiday: Northwestern vs Washington St
DickRod Bowl: Michigan vs Arizona
Music City: Purdue vs Kentucky (border states)

You left out the best one...

Dec. 27
PINSTRIPE BOWL: Iowa vs. Boston College
A real "slobber knocker"
07-coffee3
12-26-2017 09:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-26-2017 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(12-26-2017 05:35 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Big Ten bowl matchups could’ve been more intriguing. .

Outback: Michigan St vs South Carolina
Holiday: Northwestern vs Washington St
DickRod Bowl: Michigan vs Arizona
Music City: Purdue vs Kentucky (border states)

You left out the best one...

Dec. 27
PINSTRIPE BOWL: Iowa vs. Boston College
A real "slobber knocker"
07-coffee3

I think you need to swap Michigan for Michigan State here. Isn't Michigan playing South Carolina?
12-26-2017 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #5
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
Another bowl win for Utah today. They're 10-1 in bowl games with Kyle Whittingham as head coach.
12-26-2017 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-26-2017 05:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Another bowl win for Utah today. They're 10-1 in bowl games with Kyle Whittingham as head coach.

Well Utah's win is the only one so far. With Washington and USC to go the PAC is 1-5 in bowls thus far. I turned off of the Washington State game when I learned 5 starters were out for the game. I'm beginning to wonder if the kids turning pro don't want to play why we even have the bowls since at that point they aren't a culmination to a season but rather a crummy way to end one.

I'm pretty sure Auburn's Pettway is out for the Chic-fil-a Bowl because he is turning pro.
(This post was last modified: 12-29-2017 12:34 AM by JRsec.)
12-29-2017 12:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,229
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #7
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 12:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-26-2017 05:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Another bowl win for Utah today. They're 10-1 in bowl games with Kyle Whittingham as head coach.

Well Utah's win is the only one so far. With Washington and USC to go the PAC is 1-5 in bowls thus far. I turned off of the Washington State game when I learned 5 starters were out for the game. I'm beginning to wonder if the kids turning pro don't want to play why we even have the bowls since at that point they aren't a culmination to a season but rather a crummy way to end one.

I'm pretty sure Auburn's Pettway is out for the Chic-fil-a Bowl because he is turning pro.

Money.
We should have seen it coming.
The East-West Shrine game used to be a huge honor and all of the greatest players participated, not anymore.
Either players are trying to practice or participate in combines to get noticed at the collegiate level or the high school players won't participate because their selected colleges don't want them to get hurt at the high school level.
Now players cease to become part of their teams because a possible injury (one that they may have avoided for 12 games already).
could hurt their back pocket.

Let's just get it over with. Pay the players in a semi-pro 24 team college league and let everyone play club because they love the game.
https://www.foxsports.com/college-footba...ame-051616
12-29-2017 05:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #8
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 12:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-26-2017 05:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Another bowl win for Utah today. They're 10-1 in bowl games with Kyle Whittingham as head coach.

Well Utah's win is the only one so far. With Washington and USC to go the PAC is 1-5 in bowls thus far. I turned off of the Washington State game when I learned 5 starters were out for the game. I'm beginning to wonder if the kids turning pro don't want to play why we even have the bowls since at that point they aren't a culmination to a season but rather a crummy way to end one.

I'm pretty sure Auburn's Pettway is out for the Chic-fil-a Bowl because he is turning pro.

Money.
We should have seen it coming.
The East-West Shrine game used to be a huge honor and all of the greatest players participated, not anymore.
Either players are trying to practice or participate in combines to get noticed at the collegiate level or the high school players won't participate because their selected colleges don't want them to get hurt at the high school level.
Now players cease to become part of their teams because a possible injury (one that they may have avoided for 12 games already).
could hurt their back pocket.

Let's just get it over with. Pay the players in a semi-pro 24 team college league and let everyone play club because they love the game.
https://www.foxsports.com/college-footba...ame-051616

I think if those were my options then I would just rather everyone play club and drop the whole notion of compensation. Money has the ability to ruin a lot of things and team sports is definitely one of them. You don't have time to do your best for the team when the individual is always worried about getting paid. It's one of the primary reasons I have no interest in the NFL and much prefer amateur sports in general.

But yeah, the bowl games will never go away unless we come to a point where they are costing money. Then they'll be dead as a doornail.
12-29-2017 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #9
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
If the question is, "Having entertained the fans by playing 40-50 college football games for free, are the fans entitled to be upset if a player declines to play one more game for free?" -- the answer is obviously no.

We're talking about postseason games that are just exhibitions. Each player has the right to choose to play in the Whatever Bowl, or the NIT, or not. Another way to think of it is, from the perspective of a future NFL or NBA player, "What am I getting out of this, playing these games for nothing?" Their answer might be, probably should be, "It's an audition for professional jobs." If a player has played 40-50 college football games, or 30-plus college basketball games, he might decide that he's already done well in his auditions, and doesn't need one more. Or he might decide that he loves playing so much that he'll play any game he can get into, whether it's the Whatever Bowl or something equally meaningful, like a pickup basketball game at the park. Either way, I'm fine with it.
12-29-2017 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #10
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the question is, "Having entertained the fans by playing 40-50 college football games for free, are the fans entitled to be upset if a player declines to play one more game for free?" -- the answer is obviously no.

We're talking about postseason games that are just exhibitions. Each player has the right to choose to play in the Whatever Bowl, or the NIT, or not. Another way to think of it is, from the perspective of a future NFL or NBA player, "What am I getting out of this, playing these games for nothing?" Their answer might be, probably should be, "It's an audition for professional jobs." If a player has played 40-50 college football games, or 30-plus college basketball games, he might decide that he's already done well in his auditions, and doesn't need one more. Or he might decide that he loves playing so much that he'll play any game he can get into, whether it's the Whatever Bowl or something equally meaningful, like a pickup basketball game at the park. Either way, I'm fine with it.

Players skipping games that are exhibitions actually doesn't bother me. I don't blame the kids for looking out for their future in those circumstances. And as someone pointed out the other day, coaches do the same thing every time they switch jobs. I realize there is a business side to the game and I'm fine with that. People have to make a living...it's what makes the world go 'round

However, I do miss the days when players wouldn't consider skipping the bowl games because they actually meant something more than just production for a TV network.

With that said, my only contention with your premise is that college players are entertaining their fans for free. Nobody works for free. Players sign up for college athletics voluntarily and always have. If they think they're getting screwed then they are free to walk away at any time. The reason they fall all over themselves to sign the contract is because it's actually a pretty good deal for them. It probably should be a slightly better deal in some respects and I'm all for anything that helps the players short of upending the system and paying them as professionals, but it's still a pretty good deal nonetheless.

That and on some level, fans are entitled to be upset as long they're the ones footing the bill. Fans buy the tickets, watch the games, buy the merchandise, and make the donations.

The problem isn't the fans being upset or the players skipping the games for that matter. The problem is that there are people outside the game(TV networks mostly) who are more interested in making money than they are in what's best for the game.
12-29-2017 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #11
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 02:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the question is, "Having entertained the fans by playing 40-50 college football games for free, are the fans entitled to be upset if a player declines to play one more game for free?" -- the answer is obviously no.

We're talking about postseason games that are just exhibitions. Each player has the right to choose to play in the Whatever Bowl, or the NIT, or not. Another way to think of it is, from the perspective of a future NFL or NBA player, "What am I getting out of this, playing these games for nothing?" Their answer might be, probably should be, "It's an audition for professional jobs." If a player has played 40-50 college football games, or 30-plus college basketball games, he might decide that he's already done well in his auditions, and doesn't need one more. Or he might decide that he loves playing so much that he'll play any game he can get into, whether it's the Whatever Bowl or something equally meaningful, like a pickup basketball game at the park. Either way, I'm fine with it.

Players skipping games that are exhibitions actually doesn't bother me. I don't blame the kids for looking out for their future in those circumstances. And as someone pointed out the other day, coaches do the same thing every time they switch jobs. I realize there is a business side to the game and I'm fine with that. People have to make a living...it's what makes the world go 'round

However, I do miss the days when players wouldn't consider skipping the bowl games because they actually meant something more than just production for a TV network.

With that said, my only contention with your premise is that college players are entertaining their fans for free. Nobody works for free. Players sign up for college athletics voluntarily and always have. If they think they're getting screwed then they are free to walk away at any time. The reason they fall all over themselves to sign the contract is because it's actually a pretty good deal for them. It probably should be a slightly better deal in some respects and I'm all for anything that helps the players short of upending the system and paying them as professionals, but it's still a pretty good deal nonetheless.

That and on some level, fans are entitled to be upset as long they're the ones footing the bill. Fans buy the tickets, watch the games, buy the merchandise, and make the donations.

The problem isn't the fans being upset or the players skipping the games for that matter. The problem is that there are people outside the game(TV networks mostly) who are more interested in making money than they are in what's best for the game.

When did bowls ever mean something in a way that players wouldn't consider skipping them? The change isn't with the bowls or the bowl system. The change is with how much money is potentially available to the players after they turn pro. Years ago, the financial stakes were much lower for players.
12-29-2017 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #12
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 02:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the question is, "Having entertained the fans by playing 40-50 college football games for free, are the fans entitled to be upset if a player declines to play one more game for free?" -- the answer is obviously no.

We're talking about postseason games that are just exhibitions. Each player has the right to choose to play in the Whatever Bowl, or the NIT, or not. Another way to think of it is, from the perspective of a future NFL or NBA player, "What am I getting out of this, playing these games for nothing?" Their answer might be, probably should be, "It's an audition for professional jobs." If a player has played 40-50 college football games, or 30-plus college basketball games, he might decide that he's already done well in his auditions, and doesn't need one more. Or he might decide that he loves playing so much that he'll play any game he can get into, whether it's the Whatever Bowl or something equally meaningful, like a pickup basketball game at the park. Either way, I'm fine with it.

Players skipping games that are exhibitions actually doesn't bother me. I don't blame the kids for looking out for their future in those circumstances. And as someone pointed out the other day, coaches do the same thing every time they switch jobs. I realize there is a business side to the game and I'm fine with that. People have to make a living...it's what makes the world go 'round

However, I do miss the days when players wouldn't consider skipping the bowl games because they actually meant something more than just production for a TV network.

With that said, my only contention with your premise is that college players are entertaining their fans for free. Nobody works for free. Players sign up for college athletics voluntarily and always have. If they think they're getting screwed then they are free to walk away at any time. The reason they fall all over themselves to sign the contract is because it's actually a pretty good deal for them. It probably should be a slightly better deal in some respects and I'm all for anything that helps the players short of upending the system and paying them as professionals, but it's still a pretty good deal nonetheless.

That and on some level, fans are entitled to be upset as long they're the ones footing the bill. Fans buy the tickets, watch the games, buy the merchandise, and make the donations.

The problem isn't the fans being upset or the players skipping the games for that matter. The problem is that there are people outside the game(TV networks mostly) who are more interested in making money than they are in what's best for the game.

Both of these are true: They sign up voluntarily and they are playing for free.

It's a good deal in the sense that if it leads to the pros it's good for the resume, in the same sense that an actor performing in community theatre productions for free might be building a resume that leads to paying acting jobs down the road. The difference is that in community theatre the director isn't making $5 million/year, they're not selling over 50,000 tickets per show at $75-200 each, and no one is paying millions to televise the play. But if those things were true for any community theatre, people would definitely be asking, given all the money being generated, why the actors aren't being paid.
12-29-2017 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #13
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 04:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 02:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 12:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the question is, "Having entertained the fans by playing 40-50 college football games for free, are the fans entitled to be upset if a player declines to play one more game for free?" -- the answer is obviously no.

We're talking about postseason games that are just exhibitions. Each player has the right to choose to play in the Whatever Bowl, or the NIT, or not. Another way to think of it is, from the perspective of a future NFL or NBA player, "What am I getting out of this, playing these games for nothing?" Their answer might be, probably should be, "It's an audition for professional jobs." If a player has played 40-50 college football games, or 30-plus college basketball games, he might decide that he's already done well in his auditions, and doesn't need one more. Or he might decide that he loves playing so much that he'll play any game he can get into, whether it's the Whatever Bowl or something equally meaningful, like a pickup basketball game at the park. Either way, I'm fine with it.

Players skipping games that are exhibitions actually doesn't bother me. I don't blame the kids for looking out for their future in those circumstances. And as someone pointed out the other day, coaches do the same thing every time they switch jobs. I realize there is a business side to the game and I'm fine with that. People have to make a living...it's what makes the world go 'round

However, I do miss the days when players wouldn't consider skipping the bowl games because they actually meant something more than just production for a TV network.

With that said, my only contention with your premise is that college players are entertaining their fans for free. Nobody works for free. Players sign up for college athletics voluntarily and always have. If they think they're getting screwed then they are free to walk away at any time. The reason they fall all over themselves to sign the contract is because it's actually a pretty good deal for them. It probably should be a slightly better deal in some respects and I'm all for anything that helps the players short of upending the system and paying them as professionals, but it's still a pretty good deal nonetheless.

That and on some level, fans are entitled to be upset as long they're the ones footing the bill. Fans buy the tickets, watch the games, buy the merchandise, and make the donations.

The problem isn't the fans being upset or the players skipping the games for that matter. The problem is that there are people outside the game(TV networks mostly) who are more interested in making money than they are in what's best for the game.

Both of these are true: They sign up voluntarily and they are playing for free.

It's a good deal in the sense that if it leads to the pros it's good for the resume, in the same sense that an actor performing in community theatre productions for free might be building a resume that leads to paying acting jobs down the road. The difference is that in community theatre the director isn't making $5 million/year, they're not selling over 50,000 tickets per show at $75-200 each, and no one is paying millions to televise the play. But if those things were true for any community theatre, people would definitely be asking, given all the money being generated, why the actors aren't being paid.

That's not really an apples to apples comparison.

To say they're doing it for free would mean they get no compensation other than experience in their particular field. Like an internship or something of that sort. That's really not the case at all.

While the experience is very positive and will lead some of them into jobs where $5 million a year isn't unrealistic, they also have the opportunity to attend college and chart another career path if they choose. Actually, that's what most of them have to do because the NFL isn't going to pay most of these guys a ton of money assuming they're good enough to even enter the league in the first place.

Now one might pooh-pooh the college education as some clearly aren't interested in taking advantage of it, but that's their choice. If one chooses then you can set yourself up for a pretty good life even if you never set foot in an NFL training camp. Between a potential degree along with room and board, you're looking at a pretty nice sum of money that the average person would have to fork over out of pocket.

There's that and the vastly underrated access to donors and alumni...many of whom will be business owners and influential in whatever sphere they're in. That alone is a vehicle to set a lot of guys up for life.

There are also opportunities to become one of those coaches making $5 million or at least have a decent living in the profession

All in all, especially for the kids coming out of impoverished backgrounds, it's an opportunity to significantly alter your family's trajectory. It's also an opportunity that is not available to just anyone and everyone. You won't find any of that in community theater.

Now one might argue that it would be better to forget the education and just allow kids to cash a check. I would argue that in such a dynamic, hardly a soul on the team would make enough money to be much better off than the typical low wage employee. There's a lot of money in college athletics, certainly, but there's not nearly enough money flowing through the system to offer 85 football players and all the rest of the athletes at the school anything more than a modest salary. Even then, that salary will be gone in 3-5 years...then what? These schools might have the cash to pay a select few a really good salary, but they aren't about to drop big money on a whole host of kids as most of them won't be elite players and the vast majority of them will outlive their usefulness within a couple of years.

And that's at the richest schools as most of them aren't going to bring down big money. Coaches will still get their salaries and most of the money will be recycled to prop up the Athletic Department and all of it's expenditures just as it is now. There aren't a lot of individuals getting rich off these kids as people seem to think. Well, at least the people getting rich aren't associated with the school...

How many people would really be better off with that system? How many people would be worse off? These are questions that should be asked.

With all that said, I'm all for increasing the benefits...FCOA scholarships, stipends, better health insurance, long term educational opportunities, and principally the removal of the arcane rule that you can't profit off of your likeness. There's a lot we can do for college athletes, but turning them into professionals creates more problems than it solves.

Now that I've thoroughly hijacked the thread...

Roll Tide
12-29-2017 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
Well the Big 10 is now 6-0, the PAC finishes 1-8, the SEC gets it first win courtesy of Mississippi State and the Big 12 is now 5-2 with one left to play.

The PAC has he dubious distinction of being the first P conference to lose 8 bowl games in one season. (It may be an all time record for any conference.)
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2017 08:27 PM by JRsec.)
12-30-2017 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #15
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-30-2017 08:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well the Big 10 is now 6-0, the PAC finishes 1-8, the SEC gets it first win courtesy of Mississippi State and the Big 12 is now 5-2 with one left to play.

The PAC has he dubious distinction of being the first P conference to lose 8 bowl games in one season. (It may be an all time record for any conference.)

Well, at least Larry Scott has something to add to his very short list of accomplishments. 07-coffee3
12-31-2017 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #16
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-29-2017 05:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now one might argue that it would be better to forget the education and just allow kids to cash a check. I would argue that in such a dynamic, hardly a soul on the team would make enough money to be much better off than the typical low wage employee. There's a lot of money in college athletics, certainly, but there's not nearly enough money flowing through the system to offer 85 football players and all the rest of the athletes at the school anything more than a modest salary. Even then, that salary will be gone in 3-5 years...then what? These schools might have the cash to pay a select few a really good salary, but they aren't about to drop big money on a whole host of kids as most of them won't be elite players and the vast majority of them will outlive their usefulness within a couple of years.

As this article points out, the money generated by the CFP alone would be enough to pay a salary of $54,000/year to every single football player on scholarship at every FBS school.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/co...ncna833486
Quote:Let’s do some basic math. There are 130 schools in the NCAA’s Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of college football and the one that divvies up almost all of the Playoff money. Each FBS school has 85 players on scholarship, which means approximately 11,050 athletes. Divide the annual $600 million Playoff jackpot by 11,050, and you end up with approximately $54,000 — an amount that could have been paid to every player, each and every year, all without touching most of the revenue that already was flowing through the sport.

And again, that's just the CFP money; there's a helluva lot more money in college football than just that. Of course, in a free market -- like the Kessler lawsuit proposes -- you wouldn't pay everyone the same salary, just as the players at the bottom of the Patriots' depth chart don't make the same salary as Tom Brady.
12-31-2017 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #17
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-31-2017 02:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 05:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now one might argue that it would be better to forget the education and just allow kids to cash a check. I would argue that in such a dynamic, hardly a soul on the team would make enough money to be much better off than the typical low wage employee. There's a lot of money in college athletics, certainly, but there's not nearly enough money flowing through the system to offer 85 football players and all the rest of the athletes at the school anything more than a modest salary. Even then, that salary will be gone in 3-5 years...then what? These schools might have the cash to pay a select few a really good salary, but they aren't about to drop big money on a whole host of kids as most of them won't be elite players and the vast majority of them will outlive their usefulness within a couple of years.

As this article points out, the money generated by the CFP alone would be enough to pay a salary of $54,000/year to every single football player on scholarship at every FBS school.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/co...ncna833486
Quote:Let’s do some basic math. There are 130 schools in the NCAA’s Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of college football and the one that divvies up almost all of the Playoff money. Each FBS school has 85 players on scholarship, which means approximately 11,050 athletes. Divide the annual $600 million Playoff jackpot by 11,050, and you end up with approximately $54,000 — an amount that could have been paid to every player, each and every year, all without touching most of the revenue that already was flowing through the sport.

And again, that's just the CFP money; there's a helluva lot more money in college football than just that. Of course, in a free market -- like the Kessler lawsuit proposes -- you wouldn't pay everyone the same salary, just as the players at the bottom of the Patriots' depth chart don't make the same salary as Tom Brady.

I get that, but that's really not the long and short of it.

1. The figure I had in mind was about $50K when I said modest income. That's not super far above an entry level wage in most places. The reason is that in a lot of places around the country, 50K won't get you very far. In some places, it's decent money and in others you can be pretty comfortable. All in all, unless the schools maintain their room and board benefits then 50K will be mostly gone by the time you account for all the everyday expenses.

2. Unless the feds decide to grant a special exemption, all that is going to be taxable. No player will actually get that much. That and if you make the athletes professionals then any other benefit they receive is probably going to be taxable as well. One cannot be both an amateur and a professional at the same time.

3. There's a good chance other benefits would cease. I worked for a major university at one point. It was a modest job, nothing super important, but they did have a good benefits package. My salary was low, but I had health insurance, retirement, access to life insurance and such and so forth. Also, I had the opportunity to further my education by taking one free class every semester.

That was cool and all, but obviously you didn't have the time or the money to get an additional degree in 4-5 years. Remember, I only had one free class offered. I had to pay for the rest if I really wanted to do that. This was a university-wide policy for all employees and while I don't know for certain if this sort of benefit is standard in higher education I suspect that something similar probably is.

Point being, I probably wasn't worth as much money as a football player would be to this university, but your run of the mill athlete wouldn't have been worth significantly more in the market place. The result is that if universities treat athletes as employees(and they'd have to) then the opportunity to get room and board along with an education would likely be curtailed.

An employee doesn't spend most of his day in class or go home to a dorm. A student does that and if we upend amateur athletics at the college level then the market is going to determine the compensation. The NCAA won't have jurisdiction any longer and if college athletes are there to play football or whatever then they're going to be expected to dedicate their day to that even more than they do now. The lines between student athlete and pro will no longer be blurry, they'll be obliterated.

3. One might say $50K is still better than nothing. In a vacuum, they're correct, but I can't stress enough that this salary is going to go away after 3-5 years. Unless the kids take advantage of an educational opportunity then the vast majority of that cash will go down the drain. If the kid relies on his salary and doesn't land another career in a few short years then it will all have been for naught.

Remember the anecdote about getting one free class as an employee? I imagine that would hold true for athletes and there simply won't be time to get a degree before you've outlived your usefulness. Schools aren't going to allow these guys to play for 10 years until their bodies give out. There's no motivation to do so when the next young hot recruit is waiting at the local high school. The elite players will go to the NFL where they can make good money, no shot they're sticking around. Even if they did allow some guys to stick around and play "semi-pro" ball for a number of years, the guy will still have gained very little. $50K for 10 years...that's nice except that there's an expiration date on your ability to contribute and then you've got nothing once the job is over.

3. Most importantly, the football players will not be the only ones paid. So while the CFP revenue looks like a slam dunk way to give some guys some cash, it actually won't be limited to that.

Every athlete is going to have to be given the same amount for the sake of Title IX if nothing else. This has never been just about paying football and basketball players, it's not that simple.

One of two things will happen...

Either every athlete on campus will make about the same amount regardless of sport or the university will do the economical thing and just get rid of any sport that doesn't make money. So there's tons of kids who just got their scholarship yanked...

-----------------------------------------------------------

I have sometimes used this example: the only similarity between college football and the NFL is that they both play the game of football. Literally everything else about the two sports is different.

If we decide we want to make players professionals then forget the NCAA, these guys are going to come under Federal and State regulatory agencies. They'll be state employees rather than students and ultimately they won't make that much money before they get pushed out.
12-31-2017 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #18
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-31-2017 10:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  3. Most importantly, the football players will not be the only ones paid. So while the CFP revenue looks like a slam dunk way to give some guys some cash, it actually won't be limited to that.

Every athlete is going to have to be given the same amount for the sake of Title IX if nothing else. This has never been just about paying football and basketball players, it's not that simple.

Title IX doesn't require every athlete to be given the same compensation. It forbids gender discrimination in any "education program or activity". Even under the current system, some college athletes receive full scholarship benefits, some get partial scholarships, and some are walk-ons. There's no legitimate interpretation of Title IX that would require a school to pay all men's water polo athletes the same compensation as the best-compensated football player.

And the key to taking "revenue sports" out from under the Title IX umbrella would be to make those sports a program that is not an "education program or activity". I have no doubt that smart lawyers could figure out a way to do that.

For sure the Delanys of the establishment who want to maintain the status quo forever will claim that Title IX makes it impossible to pay Sam Darnold or Marvin Bagley more than a golfer or high jumper. But that's just another argument made by those who have been made millionaires by the status quo.
01-01-2018 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #19
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(12-31-2017 10:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-31-2017 02:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 05:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now one might argue that it would be better to forget the education and just allow kids to cash a check. I would argue that in such a dynamic, hardly a soul on the team would make enough money to be much better off than the typical low wage employee. There's a lot of money in college athletics, certainly, but there's not nearly enough money flowing through the system to offer 85 football players and all the rest of the athletes at the school anything more than a modest salary. Even then, that salary will be gone in 3-5 years...then what? These schools might have the cash to pay a select few a really good salary, but they aren't about to drop big money on a whole host of kids as most of them won't be elite players and the vast majority of them will outlive their usefulness within a couple of years.

As this article points out, the money generated by the CFP alone would be enough to pay a salary of $54,000/year to every single football player on scholarship at every FBS school.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/co...ncna833486
Quote:Let’s do some basic math. There are 130 schools in the NCAA’s Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of college football and the one that divvies up almost all of the Playoff money. Each FBS school has 85 players on scholarship, which means approximately 11,050 athletes. Divide the annual $600 million Playoff jackpot by 11,050, and you end up with approximately $54,000 — an amount that could have been paid to every player, each and every year, all without touching most of the revenue that already was flowing through the sport.

And again, that's just the CFP money; there's a helluva lot more money in college football than just that. Of course, in a free market -- like the Kessler lawsuit proposes -- you wouldn't pay everyone the same salary, just as the players at the bottom of the Patriots' depth chart don't make the same salary as Tom Brady.

I get that, but that's really not the long and short of it.

1. The figure I had in mind was about $50K when I said modest income. That's not super far above an entry level wage in most places. The reason is that in a lot of places around the country, 50K won't get you very far. In some places, it's decent money and in others you can be pretty comfortable. All in all, unless the schools maintain their room and board benefits then 50K will be mostly gone by the time you account for all the everyday expenses.

2. Unless the feds decide to grant a special exemption, all that is going to be taxable. No player will actually get that much. That and if you make the athletes professionals then any other benefit they receive is probably going to be taxable as well. One cannot be both an amateur and a professional at the same time.

3. There's a good chance other benefits would cease. I worked for a major university at one point. It was a modest job, nothing super important, but they did have a good benefits package. My salary was low, but I had health insurance, retirement, access to life insurance and such and so forth. Also, I had the opportunity to further my education by taking one free class every semester.

That was cool and all, but obviously you didn't have the time or the money to get an additional degree in 4-5 years. Remember, I only had one free class offered. I had to pay for the rest if I really wanted to do that. This was a university-wide policy for all employees and while I don't know for certain if this sort of benefit is standard in higher education I suspect that something similar probably is.

Point being, I probably wasn't worth as much money as a football player would be to this university, but your run of the mill athlete wouldn't have been worth significantly more in the market place. The result is that if universities treat athletes as employees(and they'd have to) then the opportunity to get room and board along with an education would likely be curtailed.

An employee doesn't spend most of his day in class or go home to a dorm. A student does that and if we upend amateur athletics at the college level then the market is going to determine the compensation. The NCAA won't have jurisdiction any longer and if college athletes are there to play football or whatever then they're going to be expected to dedicate their day to that even more than they do now. The lines between student athlete and pro will no longer be blurry, they'll be obliterated.

3. One might say $50K is still better than nothing. In a vacuum, they're correct, but I can't stress enough that this salary is going to go away after 3-5 years. Unless the kids take advantage of an educational opportunity then the vast majority of that cash will go down the drain. If the kid relies on his salary and doesn't land another career in a few short years then it will all have been for naught.

Remember the anecdote about getting one free class as an employee? I imagine that would hold true for athletes and there simply won't be time to get a degree before you've outlived your usefulness. Schools aren't going to allow these guys to play for 10 years until their bodies give out. There's no motivation to do so when the next young hot recruit is waiting at the local high school. The elite players will go to the NFL where they can make good money, no shot they're sticking around. Even if they did allow some guys to stick around and play "semi-pro" ball for a number of years, the guy will still have gained very little. $50K for 10 years...that's nice except that there's an expiration date on your ability to contribute and then you've got nothing once the job is over.

3. Most importantly, the football players will not be the only ones paid. So while the CFP revenue looks like a slam dunk way to give some guys some cash, it actually won't be limited to that.

Every athlete is going to have to be given the same amount for the sake of Title IX if nothing else. This has never been just about paying football and basketball players, it's not that simple.

One of two things will happen...

Either every athlete on campus will make about the same amount regardless of sport or the university will do the economical thing and just get rid of any sport that doesn't make money. So there's tons of kids who just got their scholarship yanked...

-----------------------------------------------------------

I have sometimes used this example: the only similarity between college football and the NFL is that they both play the game of football. Literally everything else about the two sports is different.

If we decide we want to make players professionals then forget the NCAA, these guys are going to come under Federal and State regulatory agencies. They'll be state employees rather than students and ultimately they won't make that much money before they get pushed out.
They're already getting 40k a year in tax free tuition and room and board. Plus they get massive amounts of free tutoring and the best training money can buy in their sport. What they already get is worth vastly more than 50k and they don't pay taxes on it.
01-02-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #20
RE: P5 vs. P5 bowl matchups
(01-01-2018 01:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-31-2017 10:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  3. Most importantly, the football players will not be the only ones paid. So while the CFP revenue looks like a slam dunk way to give some guys some cash, it actually won't be limited to that.

Every athlete is going to have to be given the same amount for the sake of Title IX if nothing else. This has never been just about paying football and basketball players, it's not that simple.

Title IX doesn't require every athlete to be given the same compensation. It forbids gender discrimination in any "education program or activity". Even under the current system, some college athletes receive full scholarship benefits, some get partial scholarships, and some are walk-ons. There's no legitimate interpretation of Title IX that would require a school to pay all men's water polo athletes the same compensation as the best-compensated football player.

And the key to taking "revenue sports" out from under the Title IX umbrella would be to make those sports a program that is not an "education program or activity". I have no doubt that smart lawyers could figure out a way to do that.

For sure the Delanys of the establishment who want to maintain the status quo forever will claim that Title IX makes it impossible to pay Sam Darnold or Marvin Bagley more than a golfer or high jumper. But that's just another argument made by those who have been made millionaires by the status quo.

It's a fair point that athletes in minor sports probably wouldn't make as much if everything went professional. You are correct about the scholarship rules, but I think you're missing the overarching point.

They might not make as much, but they'll still make quite a bit in relation to what the football or basketball players would be bringing down. Maybe about half...something in keeping with the ratios of how scholarships are doled out. That is, if these athletic programs are maintained as extensions of the school.

The market can't be 100% free because of Title IX. It does refer to educational programs or activities, yes, but what does that mean? Well, currently college athletics does constitute an educational program or activity. These athletes represent the school and they receive benefits for doing so. Legally, they are students first and therefore everything about their compensation is filtered through that lens.

The only way to keep Title IX from being applicable would be to make the athletes employees. And that means they won't receive a scholarship for participating. I think this way of looking at it actually underscores the point. College athletes must be employees or students, but they can't be both at the same time.

So it goes back to what I said earlier, there's really only 2 ways this could play out.

1. Colleges decide to kick back money in the form of big stipends to every athlete regardless of sport. Title IX will require that no distinction be made between male and female athletes which means everyone has to get a slice if one is involved in an educational program or activity. The football players might very well get a bigger slice, but the free market cannot operate in this environment.

The threat here is that colleges may very well decide that the expenditures aren't worth it. Yes, they'll have the money, but they may decide it would be cheaper to professionalize the athletes rather than paying for a scholarship AND a huge stipend at the same time for a large number of athletes.

2. Colleges decide to professionalize their athletes in order to avoid the expenditures associated with Title IX compliance. They pay a salary to the guys who play revenue sports because the bottom line justifies the expenditure. However, non-revenue sports are cut for the most part if not totally because the expenditure can no longer be justified to pay as employees a group of athletes that don't directly contribute to student life or the promotion of the school. This might not affect sports that are frequently found on TV as that could be argued as promotion of the school.

The big thing here is that these salaries for the athletes won't last more than about 3-5 years. Without an opportunity to earn a degree, a lot of these kids will not be better off.

Overall, here is my fear...

Theoretically speaking, giving a large number of kids both a scholarship and a large stipend is doable. The money wouldn't be astronomical although I think it's more than people realize. But if you're straight up paying the athletes rather than simply offering universal benefits then I suspect some enterprising bureaucrats will start to argue that these athletes are employees rather than students. Then it will be interesting what Congress or respective state legislatures do in response if players go from becoming poor college students to kids who cash checks that would put them solidly above the poverty line.

And will the kids continue to get popular sympathy if they start pulling down larger stipends than what a lot of people would make in wages? The thing about amateur athletics is that it's supposed to be amateur, right? Your efforts can be compensated, but cash benefits constitute a different type of relationship.

I know this is all a bit muddled, but if we start to truly blur the lines between amateur and professional then we might be creating a monster we can no longer control. And I'm not sure that anyone will actually be better off. I think we should consider that the world is spinning just fine with the current system. College athletics, while it could be a little more fair, is far from a force for evil. It's purely voluntary and a tiny fraction of these kids simply decide to walk away because they don't want to do it anymore. If they were getting screwed then they would go find something else to do with their time.
01-02-2018 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.