(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

In a true world, the kids who don't want to be in college should have a minor league to try to make to the NFL. Put a six year limit on participation ... if you don't make it to the NFL by six years after high school, then you're done. Go do something else.

That leaves the kids who understand and appreciate the value and opportunity that a football scholarship to an excellent university provides.


Agreed on four years. Cap it at 4 x 15 = 60. Coaches will cry big alligator tears. Too bad, everyone will be on a level playing field, deal with it.

(09-30-2015 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

The thought that students as a whole graduate in 4 years is a big misnomer. Only 39% of students who entered college in 2007 graduated in 4 years. 34.5% males and 43.5% females. But 5 years those numbers jump up to 55.1% total, 51.6% male, 58.1% female. 6 years- 59.2% total- 56.5% male, 61.9% female. So it goes from 39% up to 55% just from year 4 to year 5.. 1/3 of the folks that graduate in 6 years do so in years 5 and 6- with that number closer to 2/3 for males. So athletes are no different than the general population there.

Bish,

I've gone round and round ... and round and round ... with stever on his misleading numbers above. He won't budge.

So here's the "right" way to look at his numbers:


Take 100 kids that enter school together. His number say that six years later, only 59 kids have graduated. Why haven't the other 41 graduated yet? It doesn't say. But after six years, we can consider them drop outs.

So now we're talking about 59 kids, not 100. And so, of those 59 kids:

- 66% (39) took four years to graduate
- 27% (16) took five years to graduate
- 7% (4) took six years to graduate


So the numbers actually still do support that the vast majority of kids who have graduated by six years after the start date, do in fact take only four years to graduate.


Further, the study just looks at raw numbers. It does nothing to factor in reasons why the five and six year students are taking extra time. IE, it does nothing to justify that a five/six year student actually would've been a four year student if only he/she didn't have to take a year off to work, etc.

(09-30-2015 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:19 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  So.....when does EA Sports bring back college football?

NCAA won't touch it. They won't license their trademarks. Its gone.

If the appeals ruling holds, then no NCAA school has to pay any player a single dime above FCOA for using or selling their NILs.

So of course they're going to sell their NILs. There's nothing wrong with that, anyway.

(09-30-2015 12:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

In a true world, the kids who don't want to be in college should have a minor league to try to make to the NFL. Put a six year limit on participation ... if you don't make it to the NFL by six years after high school, then you're done. Go do something else.

That leaves the kids who understand and appreciate the value and opportunity that a football scholarship to an excellent university provides.


Agreed on four years. Cap it at 4 x 15 = 60. Coaches will cry big alligator tears. Too bad, everyone will be on a level playing field, deal with it.

I like the minor-league idea. It's probably unworkable, but I tend to think schools should dump the NCAA and professionalize revenue sports anyway -- pay those kids a salary based on market values and make 'em employees. Hell, if I'm a kid who values a college education and I'm also a D1 level QB, I can afford to pay my own way to class.

(09-30-2015 12:43 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

In a true world, the kids who don't want to be in college should have a minor league to try to make to the NFL. Put a six year limit on participation ... if you don't make it to the NFL by six years after high school, then you're done. Go do something else.

That leaves the kids who understand and appreciate the value and opportunity that a football scholarship to an excellent university provides.


Agreed on four years. Cap it at 4 x 15 = 60. Coaches will cry big alligator tears. Too bad, everyone will be on a level playing field, deal with it.

I like the minor-league idea. It's probably unworkable, but I tend to think schools should dump the NCAA and professionalize revenue sports anyway -- pay those kids a salary based on market values and make 'em employees. Hell, if I'm a kid who values a college education and I'm also a D1 level QB, I can afford to pay my own way to class.

In my scenario, college football and NFL D-League would be completely separate entities.

Is it realistic to expect an 18 year old to play in the NFL? Probably not. But I think they're more than capable of surviving for three years in a D-League to work themselves up to a chance at the NFL. Maybe get paid $40k a year, not sure.

bison you are full of it..

That's what I said. 1/3 of the folks that graduate do so in years 5 and 6. Only 66% of overall graduates do so in 4 years.
and of males- it's closer to 2/5(I was off on that). Only 61% of males that graduate do so in 4 years.

Sorry but to act like 34% overall and 39% of males isn't a huge number is absolutely bat **** crazy. I definitely wouldn't call 61% a vast majority- hell wouldn't even call 66% a vast majority.

So to act like closing up redshirts would help the people graduate- is just insane. It wouldn't, and it would absolutely hurt a lot of people.

(09-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bison you are full of it..

That's what I said. 1/3 of the folks that graduate do so in years 5 and 6. Only 66% of overall graduates do so in 4 years.
and of males- it's closer to 2/5(I was off on that). Only 61% of males that graduate do so in 4 years.

Sorry but to act like 34% overall and 39% of males isn't a huge number is absolutely bat **** crazy. I definitely wouldn't call 61% a vast majority- hell wouldn't even call 66% a vast majority.

So to act like closing up redshirts would help the people graduate- is just insane. It wouldn't, and it would absolutely hurt a lot of people.

And, of course, no one was talking about trying to force players to graduate in four years.

Here we go, all over again ...

Look, I know you're fighting this tooth and nail because you think it would give the B1G an advantage over the SEC.

But I'm coupling this with forcing a real NFL D-League for those players who only go to college now because that is the D-League. So in that case, the SEC is screwed anyway.

So just sit back and take it.

(09-30-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bison you are full of it..

That's what I said. 1/3 of the folks that graduate do so in years 5 and 6. Only 66% of overall graduates do so in 4 years.
and of males- it's closer to 2/5(I was off on that). Only 61% of males that graduate do so in 4 years.

Sorry but to act like 34% overall and 39% of males isn't a huge number is absolutely bat **** crazy. I definitely wouldn't call 61% a vast majority- hell wouldn't even call 66% a vast majority.

So to act like closing up redshirts would help the people graduate- is just insane. It wouldn't, and it would absolutely hurt a lot of people.

And, of course, no one was talking about trying to force players to graduate in four years.

Here we go, all over again ...

That's what he said at the start of it that I replied to:
I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

Sorry but to act like everyone that redshirts- or even a majority- would get their degree in 4 years is moronic. Absolutely no proof to that at all whatsoever. The fact is there is a pretty big number of folks that it takes 5 or 6 years to graduate, regardless if they are athletes or not. Eliminating redshirts wouldn't cause all those athletes who redshirted who didn't get their degrees in 4 years but did in 5 years- to be guaranteed at all to get it in 4 years.

(09-30-2015 12:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Look, I know you're fighting this tooth and nail because you think it would give the B1G an advantage over the SEC.

But I'm coupling this with forcing a real NFL D-League for those players who only go to college now because that is the D-League. So in that case, the SEC is screwed anyway.

So just sit back and take it.

You are living in la-la land. It's not happening. Eliminating redshirting isn't happening. A D-League isn't happening.

You or H1 have a better shot of being the president of the stever20 fan club than any of those ever happening.

(09-30-2015 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bison you are full of it..

That's what I said. 1/3 of the folks that graduate do so in years 5 and 6. Only 66% of overall graduates do so in 4 years.
and of males- it's closer to 2/5(I was off on that). Only 61% of males that graduate do so in 4 years.

Sorry but to act like 34% overall and 39% of males isn't a huge number is absolutely bat **** crazy. I definitely wouldn't call 61% a vast majority- hell wouldn't even call 66% a vast majority.

So to act like closing up redshirts would help the people graduate- is just insane. It wouldn't, and it would absolutely hurt a lot of people.

And, of course, no one was talking about trying to force players to graduate in four years.

Here we go, all over again ...

That's what he said at the start of it that I replied to:
I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

Sorry but to act like everyone that redshirts- or even a majority- would get their degree in 4 years is moronic. Absolutely no proof to that at all whatsoever. The fact is there is a pretty big number of folks that it takes 5 or 6 years to graduate, regardless if they are athletes or not. Eliminating redshirts wouldn't cause all those athletes who redshirted who didn't get their degrees in 4 years but did in 5 years- to be guaranteed at all to get it in 4 years.

AGAIN ------

no one is saying that we want to force athletes to graduate in four years.

The argument is simple: colleges are historically four-year institutions, so student-athlete eligibility should be four years. Plain and simple.

(09-30-2015 01:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Look, I know you're fighting this tooth and nail because you think it would give the B1G an advantage over the SEC.

But I'm coupling this with forcing a real NFL D-League for those players who only go to college now because that is the D-League. So in that case, the SEC is screwed anyway.

So just sit back and take it.

You are living in la-la land. It's not happening. Eliminating redshirting isn't happening. A D-League isn't happening.

You or H1 have a better shot of being the president of the stever20 fan club than any of those ever happening.

Of course it's not happening.

That doesn't mean that's a valid counter-argument to why it should happen. You don't have one. Your only response has been to say "that's not happening".

(09-30-2015 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bison you are full of it..

That's what I said. 1/3 of the folks that graduate do so in years 5 and 6. Only 66% of overall graduates do so in 4 years.
and of males- it's closer to 2/5(I was off on that). Only 61% of males that graduate do so in 4 years.

Sorry but to act like 34% overall and 39% of males isn't a huge number is absolutely bat **** crazy. I definitely wouldn't call 61% a vast majority- hell wouldn't even call 66% a vast majority.

So to act like closing up redshirts would help the people graduate- is just insane. It wouldn't, and it would absolutely hurt a lot of people.

And, of course, no one was talking about trying to force players to graduate in four years.

Here we go, all over again ...

That's what he said at the start of it that I replied to:
I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

Sorry but to act like everyone that redshirts- or even a majority- would get their degree in 4 years is moronic. Absolutely no proof to that at all whatsoever. The fact is there is a pretty big number of folks that it takes 5 or 6 years to graduate, regardless if they are athletes or not. Eliminating redshirts wouldn't cause all those athletes who redshirted who didn't get their degrees in 4 years but did in 5 years- to be guaranteed at all to get it in 4 years.

AGAIN ------

no one is saying that we want to force athletes to graduate in four years.

The argument is simple: colleges are historically four-year institutions, so student-athlete eligibility should be four years. Plain and simple.

Except they aren't 4 year institutions in reality. There are a lot of folks that do take 5 and 6 years to graduate. You can say a majority graduate in 4- and you're right. But there is a signifigant part of the population that does take 5 and 6 years to graduate.

Also there's a bit of a racial component to this as well.
only 20.8 of blacks graduate in 4 years. 15.7 of black males graduate in 4 years. That number jumps up to 35.5% overall and 34.1 males in 5 years, and 40.8% overall and 35.3% males in 6 years. So the 4 year overall percentage is 51% graduating in 4 years with males being only 44%. And that's the OVERALL black population, not black athletes.

your point is that redshirting hurts kids, and I'm sorry but that is bull****. There are a lot more kids that get their degrees because of redshirting than you ever want to admit.

(09-30-2015 09:44 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:33 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Federal appeals court upholds ruling NCAA violates antitrust laws
Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that NCAA rules limiting what athletes can receive while playing sports violate antitrust laws, but the three-judge panel also threw out a plan that would have allowed schools to provide deferred athletes compensation of as much as $5,000 per year.

"The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules,” the panel wrote. “In this case, the NCAA’s rules have been more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market. The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxM4wdt...view?pli=1

This should speed up the Power conferences splitting from NCAA. Why should the power conferences continue sharing all their hard earned revenue with the NCAA and all the leech schools, who are not generating much of the revenue .

It will cause the exact opposite which would mean that the P5 schools have to be more inclusive than ever before. This ruling hits the Big East, WCC, MVC and so forth who are money makers in basketball, and could hit hard with the baseball schools as well.

I don't follow your logic.

To me this just screams "Get ready for the split between FBS and the new "D-1" for CFB division

(09-30-2015 10:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:53 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:44 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  So being a non-lawyer type, it appears the court said that "NCAA must allow for COA but nothing else" Is that how other people are reading this? If so, really a big win for the NCAA. It reminds of the NFL losing the Antitrust suit to the USFL but then was only to pay the USFL 3 dollars.

That's how I read it.
The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”


So it sounds like nothing is going to change now that COA is in effect.

Next step would be the Supreme Court as that rule of reason is pretty solid that I doubt they waste the effort to have the Supreme Court review it....or if the Supreme Court will even want to hear the case.

The entire case was that the NCAA was illegally capping player compensation to be only tuition, fees, books, room and board ... which is less than FCOA.

Now the NCAA says that any DI school can give athletic scholarships that are worth up to FCOA.


So with the NIL part of it cancelled out, it would seem that FCOA now takes care of the lawsuit.

O'Bannon essentially lost on appeal. His whole thing was that he an avatar in a video game that looked much like himself and thought to himself "hey, I never got paid for that".

So while he lost the argument that major NCAA football and bball programs should have to pay athletes for using/selling their NILs, he did still get paid by EA Sports, which settled out of court.

There are some games like a college football board games uses teams not just in the FBS, but FCS, D2 and D3 that has a history at playing at the top levels from the start. They used stats and likeness of the era between 1890 to the 1940s. Johns Hopkins and Case Western were some of the teams, and Yale, Holy Cross and them are others. The O'Bannon's case could have a ripple effect that goes all the way down to D3.

Metro State in Denver turned their club sports and moved it into a Semi-Pro league in the Rocky Mountain area of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Montana. It is like a D-League. It is made up of kids from the colleges and Universities in and around Denver which their school do not have a football team. The kids actually are playing the sport they love, and they do not care if they get paid or not. Now, we have kids or guys like Ed O'Bannon loves to make money over the love of sport. We have kids right now that are not in favor of Ed O'Bannon because they know they may not ever make it to the Pros, and want to still play because they loved the sport, and they rather get the education that they are getting. But, the P5 conferences have created a complete monster with these kids thinking that education is not important, and earning fast money is. That needs to be addressed as well. Lets tell these kids if that is how they think? Than, there is the door and see if you can earn money if that is how you think? Some of these kids will learned the hard way that the NFL will reject them because they have not gone through college. It would even hurt them to find a job without the proper education. We have created a bunch of stupid football players who do not speak proper English and all that. Winston is one of them and so some others as well.

(09-30-2015 01:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  There are a lot more kids that get their degrees because of redshirting than you ever want to admit.

The extra year definitely helps athletes, because participating in their sport takes so much time that it affects their ability to finish a bachelor's degree in 4 or 5 years. The proposal to let scholarship athletes have tuition and R&B paid for as long as they are enrolled in school, even after their eligibility is up, is excellent and ought to be enacted.

(09-30-2015 12:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

The thought that students as a whole graduate in 4 years is a big misnomer. Only 39% of students who entered college in 2007 graduated in 4 years. 34.5% males and 43.5% females. But 5 years those numbers jump up to 55.1% total, 51.6% male, 58.1% female. 6 years- 59.2% total- 56.5% male, 61.9% female. So it goes from 39% up to 55% just from year 4 to year 5.. 1/3 of the folks that graduate in 6 years do so in years 5 and 6- with that number closer to 2/3 for males. So athletes are no different than the general population there.

Bish,

I've gone round and round ... and round and round ... with stever on his misleading numbers above. He won't budge.

So here's the "right" way to look at his numbers:


Take 100 kids that enter school together. His number say that six years later, only 59 kids have graduated. Why haven't the other 41 graduated yet? It doesn't say. But after six years, we can consider them drop outs.

So now we're talking about 59 kids, not 100. And so, of those 59 kids:

- 66% (39) took four years to graduate
- 27% (16) took five years to graduate
- 7% (4) took six years to graduate


So the numbers actually still do support that the vast majority of kids who have graduated by six years after the start date, do in fact take only four years to graduate.


Further, the study just looks at raw numbers. It does nothing to factor in reasons why the five and six year students are taking extra time. IE, it does nothing to justify that a five/six year student actually would've been a four year student if only he/she didn't have to take a year off to work, etc.

Oh, I don't take stock in those numbers. It doesn't contextualize how schools have elongated the curricula (too many leaders read and got off on Alan Bloom's TCotAM book and decided to make state school into private ivy), or misrepresent them on degree maps, don't account for cost of books/materials as a deterrent for following maps, or account for schools saying you take something at this time, but having no access to that course at that given semester (Penn State is notorious for that...I took a second or third semester English class on my sixth semester in, and they don't care if you throw the degree map back at them and say you're trying to follow the curricula), or the big monster of credit transferability (the "your three isn't enough for our four, so you have to take ours, which is really just the same as yours but we won't really ever say that, because our name is better than yours" is my favorite).

And the statistics really betray the situation. You get schools like Penn State, who, I remember seeing something almost a decade ago that said only 26% of their students finished in four: when your system is as sizable as theirs, how many smaller schools who can pump their kids out in four at a rate of 75% or above and not make a dent in the numbers because the lumbering state school sits on a weighted stat? Now add Ohio State, Texas, the Cal system, SUNY, etc., that's hundreds of thousands of students, and peg them against all the other four-years out there actually committed to the four-year model. Take the D1 four-year completion rate and compare it to D2 and D3. It's not just athletes weighing the numbers down. Hardly a blip, I bet.

But, redshirting really preceded that nonsense. It opened the door for this liberal interpretation of the collegiate experience, but not in the interest of the student athlete as a student, just for the "athlete" part.