CSNbbs
Opting Out - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: The Gregory A. Ruehlmann Sr. Memorial Cincinnati Board (/forum-404.html)
+----- Thread: Opting Out (/thread-939273.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


RE: Opting Out - bww - 01-02-2022 03:32 PM

Antonio Brown said “Hold my beer”


RE: Opting Out - Bear Catlett - 01-02-2022 04:30 PM

(01-02-2022 03:32 PM)bww Wrote:  Antonio Brown said “Hold my beer”

I'd venture to say that HIS health insurance has been cut off...


RE: Opting Out - Banter - 01-02-2022 06:06 PM

(01-02-2022 12:51 PM)doss2 Wrote:  The team cannot stop opt outs but once a guy quits a gem he should no longer get any benefits. No more tuition, room, board, facility use, etc.


When I quit a company they stopped paying my CC dues, they had me return my company car, etc. Now if it was mutual I got my pay and bennies extended for as much as 3 years based on the contract.

It’s really cute you think guys are living on campus, or give a **** about tuition when they reach the level of opting out to prepare for the draft.

Who the **** cares about tuition, the academic semester is over, and they are done with school. Most are going to move out to Florida or California and train with elite trainers.

Even Ben Mauk was hardly a student at UC. Dude lived downtown, and took one online course. A guy like Olave is about to be a multimillionaire, and even if he never gets a degree will be set for life in most of Ohio.

Last thing you want to do is ban those guys from the game. Those guys are going to give you free publicity and advertising for years…they may even stroke the AD a nice check.

You are not worth anything to the company you quit. Olave is still worth a lot to OSU. Stop acting like it’s the same thing.


RE: Opting Out - crex043 - 01-02-2022 06:47 PM

These kids are just following the precedent that has been set by the NCAA and all of the high $$$ decision makers at the school. I say if a school is able to terminate someone's scholarship at any time or a coach is able to split at any time, I think players should be able to bolt any time as well. Especially if the NCAA and CFB treats regular season accomplishments with little regard if you don't have the right conference patch on your jersey, they shouldn't treat the second tier bowl games seriously either.

I'm good with it and I won't be convinced otherwise by any "business etiquette" logic that has been floating around here.


RE: Opting Out - CliftonAve - 01-02-2022 07:16 PM

(01-02-2022 06:47 PM)crex043 Wrote:  These kids are just following the precedent that has been set by the NCAA and all of the high $$$ decision makers at the school. I say if a school is able to terminate someone's scholarship at any time or a coach is able to split at any time, I think players should be able to bolt any time as well. Especially if the NCAA and CFB treats regular season accomplishments with little regard if you don't have the right conference patch on your jersey, they shouldn't treat the second tier bowl games seriously either.

I'm good with it and I won't be convinced otherwise by any "business etiquette" logic that has been floating around here.

I am fine with the player’s making the best decisions for them; but you do realize when coach’s leave to other jobs they have to pay a buy-out, right? I realize it is usually paid for by the new school, but potentially that money they could have garnered in the next contract.

As far “yanking” scholarships, how often does it happen that a kid is left out in the cold outside bad behavior? If a kid is not simply good enough coaches usually go out of their way to help get them in the portal so that can go to a lower level program or to a JUCO.


RE: Opting Out - crex043 - 01-02-2022 08:07 PM

(01-02-2022 07:16 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 06:47 PM)crex043 Wrote:  These kids are just following the precedent that has been set by the NCAA and all of the high $$$ decision makers at the school. I say if a school is able to terminate someone's scholarship at any time or a coach is able to split at any time, I think players should be able to bolt any time as well. Especially if the NCAA and CFB treats regular season accomplishments with little regard if you don't have the right conference patch on your jersey, they shouldn't treat the second tier bowl games seriously either.

I'm good with it and I won't be convinced otherwise by any "business etiquette" logic that has been floating around here.

I am fine with the player’s making the best decisions for them; but you do realize when coach’s leave to other jobs they have to pay a buy-out, right? I realize it is usually paid for by the new school, but potentially that money they could have garnered in the next contract.

As far “yanking” scholarships, how often does it happen that a kid is left out in the cold outside bad behavior? If a kid is not simply good enough coaches usually go out of their way to help get them in the portal so that can go to a lower level program or to a JUCO.

The difference with coaches is they're generally still getting generational money, especially at the P5 level, even with whatever impact that occurs from the buy out money (which is little since the new school has to entice the coach to make the leap). Players up until this point aren't really guaranteed any standard of living either way.

Not sure about the frequency of yanking scholarships, but I've heard where a player has essentially been told there's no room for them anymore.


RE: Opting Out - Z-Fly - 01-03-2022 06:54 AM

The reality is, they are going to do it regardless of what we think should happen. Make decisions based on that knowledge. Think of it as a computer program. You know the behavior, so change the code. Players will stick around for games they think matter. Those seem to be limited to playoff games. Seems like there should be more playoff games then.

The players were the last to jump on the money/self indulgence train. The NCAA, ESPN, the schools, and the coaches made it about money long before the players ever did. Now we're calling them quitters, because they are following suit? That's not fair. They are the ones putting the most on the line, every time they take the field. We just watched a slew of coaches leaving their dream job/blue chip schools for more money. When that happened there was some push back, but we mostly said that's the business. I actually appreciate their actions, because it might cause some needed change.

The NCAA needs to review it's post season as a whole. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. The bowls games are outdated, and I frankly think they're weird. It was setup in the early 1900s for teams to play each other to see how they stack up across the country, before travel was easy as it is now. They probably should have been done away with it 70 or so years ago. Instead they were expanded, expanded, and expanded for $$$ reasons. Picking champions based on biased voters is inadequate and dumb. Like Mark always says, it should be decided on the field. My somewhat of a conspiracy theory is, the bowls have lasted as long as they have, because they made a lot of people a lot of money, and too many palms are being greased

I don't like to state a problem without a solution, I would probably do the following;

- Reduce the regular season games to 10 (8 Conference/2 Non-Conference).
- No FCS/HBCU/Div 2 games
- Eliminate Buy games
- 16 team playoff
- All Conference Champions get a bid
- Eliminate all bowl games
- First round games at the higher seed's home field.
- Allow all teams to practice until December 23rd
- Not sure if they early signing period would need to be moved or not.

The only road blocks I can see are someone somewhere will make less money and traditions that people have already lost interest in. It gives you a true national champion, more meaningful games, no practice advantages, and less opt-outs.


RE: Opting Out - doss2 - 01-03-2022 09:35 AM

(01-03-2022 06:54 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  The reality is, they are going to do it regardless of what we think should happen. Make decisions based on that knowledge. Think of it as a computer program. You know the behavior, so change the code. Players will stick around for games they think matter. Those seem to be limited to playoff games. Seems like there should be more playoff games then.

The players were the last to jump on the money/self indulgence train. The NCAA, ESPN, the schools, and the coaches made it about money long before the players ever did. Now we're calling them quitters, because they are following suit? That's not fair. They are the ones putting the most on the line, every time they take the field. We just watched a slew of coaches leaving their dream job/blue chip schools for more money. When that happened there was some push back, but we mostly said that's the business. I actually appreciate their actions, because it might cause some needed change.

The NCAA needs to review it's post season as a whole. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. The bowls games are outdated, and I frankly think they're weird. It was setup in the early 1900s for teams to play each other to see how they stack up across the country, before travel was easy as it is now. They probably should have been done away with it 70 or so years ago. Instead they were expanded, expanded, and expanded for $$$ reasons. Picking champions based on biased voters is inadequate and dumb. Like Mark always says, it should be decided on the field. My somewhat of a conspiracy theory is, the bowls have lasted as long as they have, because they made a lot of people a lot of money, and too many palms are being greased

I don't like to state a problem without a solution, I would probably do the following;

- Reduce the regular season games to 10 (8 Conference/2 Non-Conference).
- No FCS/HBCU/Div 2 games
- Eliminate Buy games
- 16 team playoff
- All Conference Champions get a bid
- Eliminate all bowl games
- First round games at the higher seed's home field.
- Allow all teams to practice until December 23rd
- Not sure if they early signing period would need to be moved or not.

The only road blocks I can see are someone somewhere will make less money and traditions that people have already lost interest in. It gives you a true national champion, more meaningful games, no practice advantages, and less opt-outs.

A wise man told me if you want to understand something consider the money.
Your plan means massive loss of games (revenue)
There are 130 FBS teams but soon will be 133. 117 teams would lose 2 games.
I assume 10 conferences would still have Championship Game.
Currently 42 bowls + 1 NC game. = 43 games
Your plan has 17 games (8+4+2+1).


RE: Opting Out - Edgebrookjeff - 01-03-2022 11:24 AM

(01-02-2022 02:46 PM)doss2 Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 02:24 PM)fnz Wrote:  Well there a few replies in this very thread:
players should no longer receive benefits when choosing not to play
players shouldn't get to go to the game if they don't play
"I don't understand how" they can do this
"I don't get it at all"
"Do you support it"

which would suggest the opinions stated here are in any way influential/necessary of how these players should choose to go about their business. The players shouldn't give two ***** what any of us (or anyone that's not themselves) think about this and I guarantee that they don't care.
If you decide to stop performing your employment duties what do you get.

FIRED!

Do you keep getting paid? Do you keep getting medical, dental, life insurance? Do you get to keep your car and club memberships?

If a player gets hurt then the school should continue the support he needs to get a degree.

Antonio Brown didn't want to into the game yesterday, now he is no longer on the team and no more pay checks.


RE: Opting Out - Edgebrookjeff - 01-03-2022 11:46 AM

(01-02-2022 03:02 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I have no issue with young men doing what they believe best protects their long term career, particularly when there are millions of dollars at stake. What's best for each individual is a complicated question with risks and opportunities both ways. I'm fine with those individuals speaking to people they trust and deciding accordingly.

This discussion could also get into the transfer portal issues. It's great when players are able to better their situation by going into the portal. However, by the percentage, there are more players that go into the portal, that never play anymore football or basketball, or if they come out of it in a worse situation than they had when they started the process. These kids are getting bad advice and are paying the ultimate price for it.


RE: Opting Out - BearcatDave - 01-03-2022 12:07 PM

I hate to see players opt out also, but you guys all forget the cliche keywords. Generational wealth.

Those players really need to keep their future in mind.


RE: Opting Out - Z-Fly - 01-03-2022 12:53 PM

(01-03-2022 09:35 AM)doss2 Wrote:  
(01-03-2022 06:54 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  The reality is, they are going to do it regardless of what we think should happen. Make decisions based on that knowledge. Think of it as a computer program. You know the behavior, so change the code. Players will stick around for games they think matter. Those seem to be limited to playoff games. Seems like there should be more playoff games then.

The players were the last to jump on the money/self indulgence train. The NCAA, ESPN, the schools, and the coaches made it about money long before the players ever did. Now we're calling them quitters, because they are following suit? That's not fair. They are the ones putting the most on the line, every time they take the field. We just watched a slew of coaches leaving their dream job/blue chip schools for more money. When that happened there was some push back, but we mostly said that's the business. I actually appreciate their actions, because it might cause some needed change.

The NCAA needs to review it's post season as a whole. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. The bowls games are outdated, and I frankly think they're weird. It was setup in the early 1900s for teams to play each other to see how they stack up across the country, before travel was easy as it is now. They probably should have been done away with it 70 or so years ago. Instead they were expanded, expanded, and expanded for $$$ reasons. Picking champions based on biased voters is inadequate and dumb. Like Mark always says, it should be decided on the field. My somewhat of a conspiracy theory is, the bowls have lasted as long as they have, because they made a lot of people a lot of money, and too many palms are being greased

I don't like to state a problem without a solution, I would probably do the following;

- Reduce the regular season games to 10 (8 Conference/2 Non-Conference).
- No FCS/HBCU/Div 2 games
- Eliminate Buy games
- 16 team playoff
- All Conference Champions get a bid
- Eliminate all bowl games
- First round games at the higher seed's home field.
- Allow all teams to practice until December 23rd
- Not sure if they early signing period would need to be moved or not.

The only road blocks I can see are someone somewhere will make less money and traditions that people have already lost interest in. It gives you a true national champion, more meaningful games, no practice advantages, and less opt-outs.

A wise man told me if you want to understand something consider the money.
Your plan means massive loss of games (revenue)
There are 130 FBS teams but soon will be 133. 117 teams would lose 2 games.
I assume 10 conferences would still have Championship Game.
Currently 42 bowls + 1 NC game. = 43 games
Your plan has 17 games (8+4+2+1).

You are right Doss. Follow the money, is a phrase I use a lot. My suggestion was just trying to figure out the best on field product and a champion we can all agree on. While less games, doesn't always mean less money, your point is valid.

I'm not a TV money expert, but from my understanding in the NFL and MLB the big money comes in from the playoffs. Which is why they want to keep expanding the playoffs. A TV guru would have to predict what the most profitable setup would be. I know we assume all home games are money makers. I'm not so sure the FCS games are big cash grabs anyone besides the top 5%.


RE: Opting Out - BigDawg - 01-03-2022 01:08 PM

It will only get worse in the future. Honestly an expanded playoff is the main reason. Very few care about opt outs for the lesser teams, they care about all the stars that sit out. Expand the playoffs and those stars don't opt out since the NC is still in play.

I think 12 team model is best. 5 auto qualifiers from P5 conferences, top G5 team and then 6 wildcards. Top 4 get a bye. Then play at the lowest seeds at home in the 1st round. I could see the final 8 at home venues (So the top 4 get another home game with the bye) as well and then the final 4 at bowls like it is now. Though I could see having the final 8 at existing bowls. I just don't think fans would travel that many times and traveling twice is probably the most that would happen. 16 team would be fine too, but I think there should be a reward for the top teams and having a bye makes sense.


RE: Opting Out - Edgebrookjeff - 01-03-2022 01:15 PM

(01-03-2022 01:08 PM)BigDawg Wrote:  It will only get worse in the future. Honestly an expanded playoff is the main reason. Very few care about opt outs for the lesser teams, they care about all the stars that sit out. Expand the playoffs and those stars don't opt out since the NC is still in play.

I think 12 team model is best. 5 auto qualifiers from P5 conferences, top G5 team and then 6 wildcards. Top 4 get a bye. Then play at the lowest seeds at home in the 1st round. I could see the final 8 at home venues (So the top 4 get another home game with the bye) as well and then the final 4 at bowls like it is now. Though I could see having the final 8 at existing bowls. I just don't think fans would travel that many times and traveling twice is probably the most that would happen. 16 team would be fine too, but I think there should be a reward for the top teams and having a bye makes sense.

The bigger conferences are going to balk at this issue unless there is a clause not limiting the number of teams any 1 conference can have. The SEC doesn't want the limit, but the PAC 12 & the ACC won't say yes without it. what is the correct answer?
I guess they wait until the current contract runs out before making a change.


RE: Opting Out - RealDeal - 01-03-2022 01:28 PM

I was listening to an interview a couple weeks ago, i believe it was Bruce Feldman but I may be misremembering, and he was saying that the playoff expansion was done until OU and UT ended up knocking on he SEC's door. Said the ACC is fighting for significant changes that would require ND joining a conference because their TV deal is a disaster and they need to be able to renegotiate. Obviously one conference can't hold everything up but for now P12 and B10 are trying to fight SEC. I like going beyond 8 because awarding byes gives value to the regular season. If that's 10 with 1-6 getting byes or 12 with 1-4 getting byes I don't really care.

And I agree with opt outs. Expansion is inevitable. The playoff has led to fewer bowl games being deemed relevant by coaches and players. That just accelerates as more teams participate in playoffs. I don't care if they continue to play them but it just emphasizes that these are just exhibition games anyway. Bowls I watch are UC, semifinals, and maybe an interesting NY6 matchup. I don't have an issue with these games continuing to exist as people enjoy watching them, I just choose not to


RE: Opting Out - doss2 - 01-03-2022 01:32 PM

(01-03-2022 01:15 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  
(01-03-2022 01:08 PM)BigDawg Wrote:  It will only get worse in the future. Honestly an expanded playoff is the main reason. Very few care about opt outs for the lesser teams, they care about all the stars that sit out. Expand the playoffs and those stars don't opt out since the NC is still in play.

I think 12 team model is best. 5 auto qualifiers from P5 conferences, top G5 team and then 6 wildcards. Top 4 get a bye. Then play at the lowest seeds at home in the 1st round. I could see the final 8 at home venues (So the top 4 get another home game with the bye) as well and then the final 4 at bowls like it is now. Though I could see having the final 8 at existing bowls. I just don't think fans would travel that many times and traveling twice is probably the most that would happen. 16 team would be fine too, but I think there should be a reward for the top teams and having a bye makes sense.

The bigger conferences are going to balk at this issue unless there is a clause not limiting the number of teams any 1 conference can have. The SEC doesn't want the limit, but the PAC 12 & the ACC won't say yes without it. what is the correct answer?
I guess they wait until the current contract runs out before making a change.

P5 Champion and Champ game loser. Top G5 and #2 G5 if rank in top 25.

Rank teams and Top 4 get a bye.
5@H v 12
6@H v 11
7@H v 10
8@H v 9

Use Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Peach and Fiesta for playoff except Final.

All other Bowls continue as is.


RE: Opting Out - skylinecat - 01-03-2022 01:42 PM

It's easy for us to poo poo the lower bowls because we just made the playoff but this program isn't that far off from us being thrilled to be playing in the Motor City Bowl or Humanitarian Bowl. UAB BYU drew 3.22 million viewers. People watch them whether you think they are important or not. For every kid opting out, there is another that gets his chance to shine on a national stage. They aren't hurting anyone. If you don't want to watch a game because a kid opted out than so be it.

I do think incorporating some of the bigger bowls into the playoff would solve both problems.


RE: Opting Out - Z-Fly - 01-03-2022 02:03 PM

(01-03-2022 01:42 PM)skylinecat Wrote:  It's easy for us to poo poo the lower bowls because we just made the playoff but this program isn't that far off from us being thrilled to be playing in the Motor City Bowl or Humanitarian Bowl. UAB BYU drew 3.22 million viewers. People watch them whether you think they are important or not. For every kid opting out, there is another that gets his chance to shine on a national stage. They aren't hurting anyone. If you don't want to watch a game because a kid opted out than so be it.

I do think incorporating some of the bigger bowls into the playoff would solve both problems.

I'm a guy who used to go to random bowls, when UC wasn't good enough to go. I love the bowl games. It's just not working anymore though, at least for the P5 teams. Maybe the bowls are a G5 only thing, but then you'd have to admit there is a split. It's pretty clear that most of the P5 don't want to play in them, the Coaches/Players/or in some cases the University.


RE: Opting Out - bearcatmark - 01-03-2022 02:08 PM

(01-03-2022 02:03 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  
(01-03-2022 01:42 PM)skylinecat Wrote:  It's easy for us to poo poo the lower bowls because we just made the playoff but this program isn't that far off from us being thrilled to be playing in the Motor City Bowl or Humanitarian Bowl. UAB BYU drew 3.22 million viewers. People watch them whether you think they are important or not. For every kid opting out, there is another that gets his chance to shine on a national stage. They aren't hurting anyone. If you don't want to watch a game because a kid opted out than so be it.

I do think incorporating some of the bigger bowls into the playoff would solve both problems.

I'm a guy who used to go to random bowls, when UC wasn't good enough to go. I love the bowl games. It's just not working anymore though, at least for the P5 teams. Maybe the bowls are a G5 only thing, but then you'd have to admit there is a split. It's pretty clear that most of the P5 don't want to play in them, the Coaches/Players/or in some cases the University.

I just don't agree with this. There are individuals that choose to opt out for very sound career reasons. Some coaches are shifting jobs, but not much to do about that. However, I've watched a good amount of the bowls and think the teams seem highly motivated to compete. I think they're still a reasonably big deal for the players and they still draw really good ratings.

Of course an expanded playoff would be even better, to go with the rest of the bowls.


RE: Opting Out - Z-Fly - 01-03-2022 03:09 PM

(01-03-2022 02:08 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(01-03-2022 02:03 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  
(01-03-2022 01:42 PM)skylinecat Wrote:  It's easy for us to poo poo the lower bowls because we just made the playoff but this program isn't that far off from us being thrilled to be playing in the Motor City Bowl or Humanitarian Bowl. UAB BYU drew 3.22 million viewers. People watch them whether you think they are important or not. For every kid opting out, there is another that gets his chance to shine on a national stage. They aren't hurting anyone. If you don't want to watch a game because a kid opted out than so be it.

I do think incorporating some of the bigger bowls into the playoff would solve both problems.

I'm a guy who used to go to random bowls, when UC wasn't good enough to go. I love the bowl games. It's just not working anymore though, at least for the P5 teams. Maybe the bowls are a G5 only thing, but then you'd have to admit there is a split. It's pretty clear that most of the P5 don't want to play in them, the Coaches/Players/or in some cases the University.

I just don't agree with this. There are individuals that choose to opt out for very sound career reasons. Some coaches are shifting jobs, but not much to do about that. However, I've watched a good amount of the bowls and think the teams seem highly motivated to compete. I think they're still a reasonably big deal for the players and they still draw really good ratings.

Of course an expanded playoff would be even better, to go with the rest of the bowls.

Some are. It's usually the lower P5 or G5 teams. It's trending in one direction. We had teams stamp Covid, then opt out last minute two years in a row. They take the practice time and bail. I had to hear all week about how the Rose Bowl was a practice game. Most major teams had multiple players opt out. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but at some point those dominos will fall.

It's becoming a bad product. Junkies like you and I might watch it. The average fan won't, and that's the real person they are chasing. Most people want to see the Heisman candidate slinging it for Pitt, not his backup's backup.