(02-19-2020 07:10 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Most fear seems to stem from players being developed and moving on. If they truly are “stars,” then they are likely gone after three years for the pros. Take Kenny Gainwell for example...very underecruited player, played four games and redshirted freshman year. He’s not likely to be at Memphis beyond next year. There’s a risk/reward analysis that would need to be weighed. Teams will lose some and gain some, but I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as some think. There’s just as likely (if not more) of a chance of losing players to CUSA/MAC/SBC teams for promises of playing time. Now with a coaching change all bets are off.

It will really come down to being a little bit of a headache for managing depth charts when it comes to Football. Bottom line is College Football has 85 scholarship players on a team and usually a handful of preferred walk on's hanging around but can easily have over 90 players per season. Look at the NFL who manages with only 53 man roster and a practice squad of 10 for a total of 63. College Football keeps a lot of players hanging around trying to build depth but they end up with a lot of kids not playing and just standing around watching. Kids can decide if they want to use their eligibility in practice and cheerleading from the sidelines or actually playing somewhere whether it is a P5 moving down to a G5 , a G5 moving up to the P5 or a AAC player either moving up to P5 or down to CUSA, Sunbelt, MAC or even going to FCS to play. New rule will just result in a lot more player turnover with some years your team gaining some talent and some years losing some talent but I don't think the new rule is anything to freak out about.

(02-19-2020 06:23 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:24 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:12 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This would by far benefit the G5 more than the P5.

There would be many more guys looking to get on the field in the AAC than sitting in the B1G than vice versa.

You think the P5 isn't going to back channel and recruit your star players?

No, I don't.

Do you think Ed Oliver needed to transfer to Texas to get noticed? No.

Say our top recruit for next year Evan Prater comes in and is all that. He's the second coming of Pat Mahomes. Does he automatically transfer to O$U?

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Why would he give up all that he had going for him to see if could make it at O$U? All you'd have to tell him is that nothing's guaranteed and they ARE the school that benched Joe Burrow, for pete's sake.

This isn't as one sided as all you inferiority complexed individuals think it is.

No but I think if Ed Oliver wanted to play for a national title he needed to look elsewhere. We've seen it at the professional level. Baseball, NBA, and even international soccer. If guys feel they can create a super team and they can fill role within that team they will take it.

(02-18-2020 11:02 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I hope this goes through. This is the second most thing I want changed for the benefit of players.

Poor exploited players have never had it better. Quite honestly the exploitation argument typically gets talked about during hoop season. Very few teams in the country make any real $ on basketball, I'll call it 35-50 teams. Hoops players have real professional options if they don't want to step to step on campus.

Football players have very little.

We're in an era of chord cutting and declining attendance. Not going to be shocked if in 10-15 years the average college fan just dials out and the $ behind the machine goes away. Then what? The era of the six to 7 figure coaching jobs and tons of scholarship opportunities may not look so bad.

But hey, let's continue to destroy a good thing.

(02-19-2020 07:43 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 11:02 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I hope this goes through. This is the second most thing I want changed for the benefit of players.

Poor exploited players have never had it better. Quite honestly the exploitation argument typically gets talked about during hoop season. Very few teams in the country make any real $ on basketball, I'll call it 35-50 teams. Hoops players have real professional options if they don't want to step to step on campus.

Football players have very little.

We're in an era of chord cutting and declining attendance. Not going to be shocked if in 10-15 years the average college fan just dials out and the $ behind the machine goes away. Then what? The era of the six to 7 figure coaching jobs and tons of scholarship opportunities may not look so bad.

But hey, let's continue to destroy a good thing.

Well first I am not really differentiating between sports when it comes to this benefit. That said never had it better? You make it seem like there's been some amazing improvements for players over the decades. Players still are not able gain any legitimate compensation other than a scholarship, and here it is 2020 and the transfer rule seems to finally have a chance to go through. But I have no problem acknowledging improvements that I missed if you show them to me.

And a what if hypothetical way down the road has very little meaning to the past and current situations players have dealt with. The schools' desires to make as much money as possible will be what destroys a good thing. Players aren't the ones that caused all this realignment destroying long time rivalries.

I would expect a spike in transfers once this is implemented and then it settles down as time passes.

(02-19-2020 12:20 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:43 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 11:02 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I hope this goes through. This is the second most thing I want changed for the benefit of players.

Poor exploited players have never had it better. Quite honestly the exploitation argument typically gets talked about during hoop season. Very few teams in the country make any real $ on basketball, I'll call it 35-50 teams. Hoops players have real professional options if they don't want to step to step on campus.

Football players have very little.

We're in an era of chord cutting and declining attendance. Not going to be shocked if in 10-15 years the average college fan just dials out and the $ behind the machine goes away. Then what? The era of the six to 7 figure coaching jobs and tons of scholarship opportunities may not look so bad.

But hey, let's continue to destroy a good thing.

Well first I am not really differentiating between sports when it comes to this benefit. That said never had it better? You make it seem like there's been some amazing improvements for players over the decades. Players still are not able gain any legitimate compensation other than a scholarship, and here it is 2020 and the transfer rule seems to finally have a chance to go through. But I have no problem acknowledging improvements that I missed if you show them to me.

And a what if hypothetical way down the road has very little meaning to the past and current situations players have dealt with. The schools' desires to make as much money as possible will be what destroys a good thing. Players aren't the ones that caused all this realignment destroying long time rivalries.

I would expect a spike in transfers once this is implemented and then it settles down as time passes.

Would it bother me if the players got some sort percentage of revenue produced?
Nope.

That said---all this hand wringing over the poor players is absolute BS. Every year thousands of player bust their butt hoping for a scholarship opportunity but never get a chance to play a down after high school. Ive seen camps where 500 players players show up and only a handful get scholarships out of it. These camps happen all the time all over the country. Thousand of players actually pay their own college tab just for the chance to play football as walk-ons. Now I didnt play college sports---but I had a job I used to pay for my own college education. After graduating, I did well enough to pay for the college education of my kids. After paying those bills---I assure you---the school only accepted real money. A scholarship is not "nothing". Millions of kids graduate every year with $30K, $40K, $50K in student debt. Some even exceed $100K in student debt. I assure you---that college debt will have to be repaid with real money as well.

My point is---every single player for every singe team could walk away in snit over not being paid and there would be plenty of kids more than happy to take their place. College football would not miss a beat. I think college players work very hard---but I also think they have a 'job" they love and they receive a level of compensation that apparently is high enough to attract tens of thousands of players who would gladly take their place if the current rosters were to leave. Not to mention---a handful of players will become very rich in just a few years--and the rest, if they work hard---will walk away with a degree that will provide them with a quality life and an excellent economic future.

So...I dont have an issue with players sharing in the compensation. But I dont think the players are getting a raw deal. Furthermore--I think we have to at least consider the fact that most schools are losing their butts on athletics---using student fees to balance the athletics budget. So, if you look at it from that angle--the athletes have it pretty good---and the regular fee paying students are the ones being abused.

UC insiders seem very pro this new rule.

I think it would clearly benefit Houston, SMU, and UC as their local markets produce a ton of D1 talent.

T

(02-19-2020 12:20 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:43 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 11:02 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I hope this goes through. This is the second most thing I want changed for the benefit of players.

Poor exploited players have never had it better. Quite honestly the exploitation argument typically gets talked about during hoop season. Very few teams in the country make any real $ on basketball, I'll call it 35-50 teams. Hoops players have real professional options if they don't want to step to step on campus.

Football players have very little.

We're in an era of chord cutting and declining attendance. Not going to be shocked if in 10-15 years the average college fan just dials out and the $ behind the machine goes away. Then what? The era of the six to 7 figure coaching jobs and tons of scholarship opportunities may not look so bad.

But hey, let's continue to destroy a good thing.

Well first I am not really differentiating between sports when it comes to this benefit. That said never had it better? You make it seem like there's been some amazing improvements for players over the decades. Players still are not able gain any legitimate compensation other than a scholarship, and here it is 2020 and the transfer rule seems to finally have a chance to go through. But I have no problem acknowledging improvements that I missed if you show them to me.

And a what if hypothetical way down the road has very little meaning to the past and current situations players have dealt with. The schools' desires to make as much money as possible will be what destroys a good thing. Players aren't the ones that caused all this realignment destroying long time rivalries.

I would expect a spike in transfers once this is implemented and then it settles down as time passes.

They are getting cost of attendance now, that is only a few years old and still not enough for some. Not to mention plenty of the star college players end up going into the "exploitative" system in coaching, analyst, etc.

Almost all newer coaches in college athletics are ex player, analyst too. This athletic economy is dishing out a lot of six figure or more jobs to ex athletes that might otherwise struggle to get $80k.

Again you're also assuming the $ is always going to be there, I predict it's spiked.

(02-19-2020 12:54 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  UC insiders seem very pro this new rule.

I think it would clearly benefit Houston, SMU, and UC as their local markets produce a ton of D1 talent.

I think if you have a coach with good connections and a top 35 type team then it will be good. If you are a lower end program of AAC or CUSA with an average coach it may not be as beneficial.

Right now with Fick and a few top 25 finishes, this can be a real good thing at least in the short term.

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Would it bother me if the players got some sort percentage of revenue produced?
Nope.

That said---all this hand wringing over the poor players is absolute BS. Every year thousands of player bust their butt hoping for a scholarship opportunity but never get a chance to play a down after high school. Ive seen camps where 500 players players show up and only a handful get scholarships out of it. These camps happen all the time all over the country. Thousand of players actually pay their own college tab just for the chance to play football as walk-ons. Now I didnt play college sports---but I had a job I used to pay for my own college education. After graduating, I did well enough to pay for the college education of my kids. After paying those bills---I assure you---the school only accepted real money. A scholarship is not "nothing". Millions of kids graduate every year with $30K, $40K, $50K in student debt. Some even exceed $100K in student debt. I assure you---that college debt will have to be repaid with real money as well.

My point is---every single player for every singe team could walk away in snit over not being paid and there would be plenty of kids more than happy to take their place. College football would not miss a beat. I think college players work very hard---but I also think they have a 'job" they love and they receive a level of compensation that apparently is high enough to attract tens of thousands of players who would gladly take their place if the current rosters were to leave. Not to mention---a handful of players will become very rich in just a few years--and the rest, if they work hard---will walk away with a degree that will provide them with a quality life and an excellent economic future.

So...I dont have an issue with players sharing in the compensation. But I dont think the players are getting a raw deal. Furthermore--I think we have to at least consider the fact that most schools are losing their butts on athletics---using student fees to balance the athletics budget. So, if you look at it from that angle--the athletes have it pretty good---and the regular fee paying students are the ones being abused.

I never called them poor players, oasispirate called them that. That said I know what you mean in regards to certain parts. I was a walk-on paying my own way and I never played a down after high school. I have a stupidly high amount of college loan debt (I want to say 80k+ due to interest). For me that still that hasn't affected my view. Just because I and others didn't have what it takes to make it doesn't mean what those who did are getting what they deserve and shouldn't be able to get more. Should a person who got little to no academic scholarships and grants believe an academically qualified people should only get enough to pay for their tuition and fees?

To be clear, what I want is player benefits to be maximized as much as possible due to the limit. What I want is that if the people in charge want to keep throwing around how athletes are students, then they should get the same benefits as students. For me my problem is mainly with the NCAA organization. This transfer rule change is a part of that for me.

Also If I become a student based on academics, I can earn any number of scholarships and grants that I qualify for. Any left after school expenses goes back to the student to do what ever they want. I've heard people back in my time saying they got anywhere from $1k-$5k per semester. Now I freely admit I forgot about the cost of attendance stipend since Memphis gives one as well, but if you become a student based on athletic performance, then your options become very limited to get more than that.

Here are the most recent NCAA requirements I remember seeing for being able to get other scholarships.

https://usatodayhss.com/2017/how-athleti...ships-work

Quote:Can student-athletes combine academic and athletic scholarships?

The short answer is yes—but it depends. The NCAA has a few specific rules about how Division I and Division II student-athletes should handle non-athletic financial aid. To accept an academic scholarship as an incoming freshman, student-athletes need to meet the following criteria:

Division I

Top 10% of the high school graduating class
Achieve a cumulative high school GPA of at least 3.50
Score 1200 or higher on the SAT or ACT sum score of at least 105

Division II

Top 20% of high school graduating class
Achieved a 3.5 cumulative GPA out of 4.00
ACT Sum score of 100 or SAT of 1140

The student must also show that athletic information was not required as part of the application process. If colleges could give athletes academic or merit-based scholarships freely, then there would be no limit on the amount of money they could offer athletes to compete at their school! By imposing these rules, the NCAA is ensuring that athletes who receive academic scholarships are getting them based on their academics, not their athletics.

There are kids that could could academically qualify for other scholarships, but don't meet these requirements. And from there another problem is this.

https://informedathlete.com/athletic-sch...id-issues/

Quote:Any student-athlete who receives any amount of athletic financial aid is considered a “counter” per NCAA rules. Once a student-athlete is considered a “counter” there are situations in which other types of financial aid may be required to be “counted” as athletic financial aid.

Any scholarships that a student-athlete will be receiving from groups such as a Rotary or Kiwanis club, a church youth group, or a high school booster club should be sent to the financial aid office of the college the student-athlete is attending. Most of these scholarships are permissible, but should be sent directly to the college so they can be processed properly.

In addition, if a Division I student-athlete also receives an academic scholarship from their college or university due to their high school GPA or their ACT or SAT test score, the fact that they are already an NCAA “counter” may affect the value or receipt of their academic scholarship.

Once a Division I student-athlete is a “counter” all other financial aid received from their institution is required to “count” as if it is an athletic scholarship, unless the student-athlete qualifies for an exemption based on the level of their GPA, their class rank, or their ACT or SAT test score.

These are other limits that I find absurd.

I won't go into impermissible benefits because this post has gone long enough.

As far as schools losing money, they have their reasons for doing so. They could do like UAB did if they feel the situation is bad enough.

I do not agree that college football would keep rolling like it does now if the current kids walked away. The impact in talent would be noticeable. From there I would believe viewership would drop.

With players getting a percentage of revenue, I don't think they necessarily have to have that. Just stop preventing them from making money in other areas, which goes back to impermissible benefits.

(02-19-2020 01:08 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  They are getting cost of attendance now, that is only a few years old and still not enough for some. Not to mention plenty of the star college players end up going into the "exploitative" system in coaching, analyst, etc.

Almost all newer coaches in college athletics are ex player, analyst too. This athletic economy is dishing out a lot of six figure or more jobs to ex athletes that might otherwise struggle to get $80k.

Again you're also assuming the $ is always going to be there, I predict it's spiked.

I admit forgetting about that because even Memphis gives it. The rest of what you are talking about is after they because a student-athlete, not during. Not all of these players want to stay in sports-related fields when they are done playing. So if we consider that a benefit, then they will never have the opportunity to take advantage of it. You give them things while they are playing then they can take advantage of it.

Also I made no assumptions about the what future money would look like. You did.

Then there’s always the other side... players getting pushed out (recruiting mistakes) in favor of bringing others in or those getting swallowed up by the portal (leave a scholarship behind with nowhere else to go). BTW, I’m okay with it as the rule needs fixing. Either everybody sits or is eligible right away and not subjected to the NCAA’s inconsistent review process. It may not be an auto win for student athletes though. Schools/coaches will use it to their advantage and there’s no guarantee a scholarship will be waiting for every player who wants a change of scenery. Of course, tampering which is hard to prove could be taken to a whole other level.

I am not against the change, but do worry when P5 schools grab a G4/P6 schools coach, he can take a lot of kids with him.

(02-19-2020 03:03 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Would it bother me if the players got some sort percentage of revenue produced?
Nope.

That said---all this hand wringing over the poor players is absolute BS. Every year thousands of player bust their butt hoping for a scholarship opportunity but never get a chance to play a down after high school. Ive seen camps where 500 players players show up and only a handful get scholarships out of it. These camps happen all the time all over the country. Thousand of players actually pay their own college tab just for the chance to play football as walk-ons. Now I didnt play college sports---but I had a job I used to pay for my own college education. After graduating, I did well enough to pay for the college education of my kids. After paying those bills---I assure you---the school only accepted real money. A scholarship is not "nothing". Millions of kids graduate every year with $30K, $40K, $50K in student debt. Some even exceed $100K in student debt. I assure you---that college debt will have to be repaid with real money as well.

My point is---every single player for every singe team could walk away in snit over not being paid and there would be plenty of kids more than happy to take their place. College football would not miss a beat. I think college players work very hard---but I also think they have a 'job" they love and they receive a level of compensation that apparently is high enough to attract tens of thousands of players who would gladly take their place if the current rosters were to leave. Not to mention---a handful of players will become very rich in just a few years--and the rest, if they work hard---will walk away with a degree that will provide them with a quality life and an excellent economic future.

So...I dont have an issue with players sharing in the compensation. But I dont think the players are getting a raw deal. Furthermore--I think we have to at least consider the fact that most schools are losing their butts on athletics---using student fees to balance the athletics budget. So, if you look at it from that angle--the athletes have it pretty good---and the regular fee paying students are the ones being abused.

I never called them poor players, oasispirate called them that. That said I know what you mean in regards to certain parts. I was a walk-on paying my own way and I never played a down after high school. I have a stupidly high amount of college loan debt (I want to say 80k+ due to interest). For me that still that hasn't affected my view. Just because I and others didn't have what it takes to make it doesn't mean what those who did are getting what they deserve and shouldn't be able to get more. Should a person who got little to no academic scholarships and grants believe an academically qualified people should only get enough to pay for their tuition and fees?

To be clear, what I want is player benefits to be maximized as much as possible due to the limit. What I want is that if the people in charge want to keep throwing around how athletes are students, then they should get the same benefits as students. For me my problem is mainly with the NCAA organization. This transfer rule change is a part of that for me.

Also If I become a student based on academics, I can earn any number of scholarships and grants that I qualify for. Any left after school expenses goes back to the student to do what ever they want. I've heard people back in my time saying they got anywhere from $1k-$5k per semester. Now I freely admit I forgot about the cost of attendance stipend since Memphis gives one as well, but if you become a student based on athletic performance, then your options become very limited to get more than that.

Here are the most recent NCAA requirements I remember seeing for being able to get other scholarships.

https://usatodayhss.com/2017/how-athleti...ships-work

Quote:Can student-athletes combine academic and athletic scholarships?

The short answer is yes—but it depends. The NCAA has a few specific rules about how Division I and Division II student-athletes should handle non-athletic financial aid. To accept an academic scholarship as an incoming freshman, student-athletes need to meet the following criteria:

Division I

Top 10% of the high school graduating class
Achieve a cumulative high school GPA of at least 3.50
Score 1200 or higher on the SAT or ACT sum score of at least 105

Division II

Top 20% of high school graduating class
Achieved a 3.5 cumulative GPA out of 4.00
ACT Sum score of 100 or SAT of 1140

The student must also show that athletic information was not required as part of the application process. If colleges could give athletes academic or merit-based scholarships freely, then there would be no limit on the amount of money they could offer athletes to compete at their school! By imposing these rules, the NCAA is ensuring that athletes who receive academic scholarships are getting them based on their academics, not their athletics.

There are kids that could could academically qualify for other scholarships, but don't meet these requirements. And from there another problem is this.

https://informedathlete.com/athletic-sch...id-issues/

Quote:Any student-athlete who receives any amount of athletic financial aid is considered a “counter” per NCAA rules. Once a student-athlete is considered a “counter” there are situations in which other types of financial aid may be required to be “counted” as athletic financial aid.

Any scholarships that a student-athlete will be receiving from groups such as a Rotary or Kiwanis club, a church youth group, or a high school booster club should be sent to the financial aid office of the college the student-athlete is attending. Most of these scholarships are permissible, but should be sent directly to the college so they can be processed properly.

In addition, if a Division I student-athlete also receives an academic scholarship from their college or university due to their high school GPA or their ACT or SAT test score, the fact that they are already an NCAA “counter” may affect the value or receipt of their academic scholarship.

Once a Division I student-athlete is a “counter” all other financial aid received from their institution is required to “count” as if it is an athletic scholarship, unless the student-athlete qualifies for an exemption based on the level of their GPA, their class rank, or their ACT or SAT test score.

These are other limits that I find absurd.

I won't go into impermissible benefits because this post has gone long enough.

As far as schools losing money, they have their reasons for doing so. They could do like UAB did if they feel the situation is bad enough.

I do not agree that college football would keep rolling like it does now if the current kids walked away. The impact in talent would be noticeable. From there I would believe viewership would drop.

With players getting a percentage of revenue, I don't think they necessarily have to have that. Just stop preventing them from making money in other areas, which goes back to impermissible benefits.

(02-19-2020 01:08 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  They are getting cost of attendance now, that is only a few years old and still not enough for some. Not to mention plenty of the star college players end up going into the "exploitative" system in coaching, analyst, etc.

Almost all newer coaches in college athletics are ex player, analyst too. This athletic economy is dishing out a lot of six figure or more jobs to ex athletes that might otherwise struggle to get $80k.

Again you're also assuming the $ is always going to be there, I predict it's spiked.

I admit forgetting about that because even Memphis gives it. The rest of what you are talking about is after they because a student-athlete, not during. Not all of these players want to stay in sports-related fields when they are done playing. So if we consider that a benefit, then they will never have the opportunity to take advantage of it. You give them things while they are playing then they can take advantage of it.

Also I made no assumptions about the what future money would look like. You did.

The value of a college scholarship is only increasing. Student loan debt is routinely six figures and killing young grads ability to get a home.

Cost of attendance is a huge change. Not to mention there living standards have drastically increased. The athletic dorms many of this kids live in are resorts. Big man on campus, college girls, free meals, free education, some pocket $, etc. It's really not a bad deal. Oh and btw, no one is forcing you to do it, especially the basketball players.

(02-19-2020 12:54 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  UC insiders seem very pro this new rule.

I think it would clearly benefit Houston, SMU, and UC as their local markets produce a ton of D1 talent.

There are 35 current NFL players from the Philly/South Jersey area. We'd benefit plenty.

EDIT: And that doesn't even include Delaware, which has 8 NFL players despite a population of under 1M.

I would bet the change will benefit SMU and Houston since they are such big recruiting areas. If you are 2nd or 3rd team an SEC Univ. in your 3rd or 4th year, why not come and start at an AAC school. You'll get more eyeballs on you from the scouts.

(02-19-2020 03:03 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Would it bother me if the players got some sort percentage of revenue produced?
Nope.

That said---all this hand wringing over the poor players is absolute BS. Every year thousands of player bust their butt hoping for a scholarship opportunity but never get a chance to play a down after high school. Ive seen camps where 500 players players show up and only a handful get scholarships out of it. These camps happen all the time all over the country. Thousand of players actually pay their own college tab just for the chance to play football as walk-ons. Now I didnt play college sports---but I had a job I used to pay for my own college education. After graduating, I did well enough to pay for the college education of my kids. After paying those bills---I assure you---the school only accepted real money. A scholarship is not "nothing". Millions of kids graduate every year with $30K, $40K, $50K in student debt. Some even exceed $100K in student debt. I assure you---that college debt will have to be repaid with real money as well.

My point is---every single player for every singe team could walk away in snit over not being paid and there would be plenty of kids more than happy to take their place. College football would not miss a beat. I think college players work very hard---but I also think they have a 'job" they love and they receive a level of compensation that apparently is high enough to attract tens of thousands of players who would gladly take their place if the current rosters were to leave. Not to mention---a handful of players will become very rich in just a few years--and the rest, if they work hard---will walk away with a degree that will provide them with a quality life and an excellent economic future.

So...I dont have an issue with players sharing in the compensation. But I dont think the players are getting a raw deal. Furthermore--I think we have to at least consider the fact that most schools are losing their butts on athletics---using student fees to balance the athletics budget. So, if you look at it from that angle--the athletes have it pretty good---and the regular fee paying students are the ones being abused.

I never called them poor players, oasispirate called them that. That said I know what you mean in regards to certain parts. I was a walk-on paying my own way and I never played a down after high school. I have a stupidly high amount of college loan debt (I want to say 80k+ due to interest). For me that still that hasn't affected my view. Just because I and others didn't have what it takes to make it doesn't mean what those who did are getting what they deserve and shouldn't be able to get more. Should a person who got little to no academic scholarships and grants believe an academically qualified people should only get enough to pay for their tuition and fees?

To be clear, what I want is player benefits to be maximized as much as possible due to the limit. What I want is that if the people in charge want to keep throwing around how athletes are students, then they should get the same benefits as students. For me my problem is mainly with the NCAA organization. This transfer rule change is a part of that for me.

Also If I become a student based on academics, I can earn any number of scholarships and grants that I qualify for. Any left after school expenses goes back to the student to do what ever they want. I've heard people back in my time saying they got anywhere from $1k-$5k per semester. Now I freely admit I forgot about the cost of attendance stipend since Memphis gives one as well, but if you become a student based on athletic performance, then your options become very limited to get more than that.

Here are the most recent NCAA requirements I remember seeing for being able to get other scholarships.

https://usatodayhss.com/2017/how-athleti...ships-work

Quote:Can student-athletes combine academic and athletic scholarships?

The short answer is yes—but it depends. The NCAA has a few specific rules about how Division I and Division II student-athletes should handle non-athletic financial aid. To accept an academic scholarship as an incoming freshman, student-athletes need to meet the following criteria:

Division I

Top 10% of the high school graduating class
Achieve a cumulative high school GPA of at least 3.50
Score 1200 or higher on the SAT or ACT sum score of at least 105

Division II

Top 20% of high school graduating class
Achieved a 3.5 cumulative GPA out of 4.00
ACT Sum score of 100 or SAT of 1140

The student must also show that athletic information was not required as part of the application process. If colleges could give athletes academic or merit-based scholarships freely, then there would be no limit on the amount of money they could offer athletes to compete at their school! By imposing these rules, the NCAA is ensuring that athletes who receive academic scholarships are getting them based on their academics, not their athletics.

There are kids that could could academically qualify for other scholarships, but don't meet these requirements. And from there another problem is this.

https://informedathlete.com/athletic-sch...id-issues/

Quote:Any student-athlete who receives any amount of athletic financial aid is considered a “counter” per NCAA rules. Once a student-athlete is considered a “counter” there are situations in which other types of financial aid may be required to be “counted” as athletic financial aid.

Any scholarships that a student-athlete will be receiving from groups such as a Rotary or Kiwanis club, a church youth group, or a high school booster club should be sent to the financial aid office of the college the student-athlete is attending. Most of these scholarships are permissible, but should be sent directly to the college so they can be processed properly.

In addition, if a Division I student-athlete also receives an academic scholarship from their college or university due to their high school GPA or their ACT or SAT test score, the fact that they are already an NCAA “counter” may affect the value or receipt of their academic scholarship.

Once a Division I student-athlete is a “counter” all other financial aid received from their institution is required to “count” as if it is an athletic scholarship, unless the student-athlete qualifies for an exemption based on the level of their GPA, their class rank, or their ACT or SAT test score.

These are other limits that I find absurd.

I won't go into impermissible benefits because this post has gone long enough.

As far as schools losing money, they have their reasons for doing so. They could do like UAB did if they feel the situation is bad enough.

I do not agree that college football would keep rolling like it does now if the current kids walked away. The impact in talent would be noticeable. From there I would believe viewership would drop.

With players getting a percentage of revenue, I don't think they necessarily have to have that. Just stop preventing them from making money in other areas, which goes back to impermissible benefits.

(02-19-2020 01:08 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  They are getting cost of attendance now, that is only a few years old and still not enough for some. Not to mention plenty of the star college players end up going into the "exploitative" system in coaching, analyst, etc.

Almost all newer coaches in college athletics are ex player, analyst too. This athletic economy is dishing out a lot of six figure or more jobs to ex athletes that might otherwise struggle to get $80k.

Again you're also assuming the $ is always going to be there, I predict it's spiked.

I admit forgetting about that because even Memphis gives it. The rest of what you are talking about is after they because a student-athlete, not during. Not all of these players want to stay in sports-related fields when they are done playing. So if we consider that a benefit, then they will never have the opportunity to take advantage of it. You give them things while they are playing then they can take advantage of it.

Also I made no assumptions about the what future money would look like. You did.

Thats fine and good. If the schools are offering those opportunities and thats what you want---then I encourage students to go after those academic scholarships and give up football.

But if the schools dont want to offer that for football---and there are plenty of people willing to take what the school is offering for football---then why should the school pay more? Furthermore---If Im losing money on my operation----there is even less reason for me to pay more---especially if the labor pool of people willing to work for what Im offering is extremely deep.

Frankly, I dont think we disagree as much as you might think. Im not totally against the athletes sharing in the revenue made by thier sports. However, I do think the student athletes are being quite reasonably compensated with a scholarship and FCOA (thats probably worth 25-45K a year). There are lots of real life jobs that are not nearly as much fun and pay significantly less. That said, I dont really begrudge them getting a share of the revenue the NCAA makes---as long as we all realize that when we count expenses---the NCAA as a business is losing its butt. The only reason the "NCAA" is in the black is because the member schools foot the expenses for producing the product and are the ones showing red on most of their balance sheets. Thus, the commonly held opinion the schools are "making all this money and screwing over the players" isnt really very accurate.

(02-19-2020 03:37 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  The value of a college scholarship is only increasing. Student loan debt is routinely six figures and killing young grads ability to get a home.

Cost of attendance is a huge change. Not to mention there living standards have drastically increased. The athletic dorms many of this kids live in are resorts. Big man on campus, college girls, free meals, free education, some pocket $, etc. It's really not a bad deal. Oh and btw, no one is forcing you to do it, especially the basketball players.

Haha. Those things might not be a bad deal and to keep the discussion from going longer than necessary I will keep my views on what you listed to myself. But like I mentioned in response to Attackcoog, I want more things accessible to these players than what they have now, i.e. what you mentioned.

(02-19-2020 03:19 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Then there’s always the other side... players getting pushed out (recruiting mistakes) in favor of bringing others in or those getting swallowed up by the portal (leave a scholarship behind with nowhere else to go). BTW, I’m okay with it as the rule needs fixing. Either everybody sits or is eligible right away and not subjected to the NCAA’s inconsistent review process. It may not be an auto win for student athletes though. Schools/coaches will use it to their advantage and there’s no guarantee a scholarship will be waiting for every player who wants a change of scenery. Of course, tampering which is hard to prove could be taken to a whole other level.

The tampering part will be interesting unless there's an unwritten rule dealing with it.

(02-19-2020 03:24 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I am not against the change, but do worry when P5 schools grab a G4/P6 schools coach, he can take a lot of kids with him.

I could see this as the bigger potential negative than the non-P5 schools becoming a minor league concerns. But even then it might be hard for players to be in a position to transfer considering when coaches make their decisions.

Apparently Mark Richt isn't a great fan of the changes:

https://twitter.com/MarkRicht/status/122...89125?s=20

"I know, I have an idea. You recruit and develop players and when I think they’re good enough I will poach them from your roster! Welcome to what the new normal will look like in college football!"

I mean, he ain't wrong....

(02-19-2020 05:42 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  Apparently Mark Richt isn't a great fan of the changes:

https://twitter.com/MarkRicht/status/122...89125?s=20

"I know, I have an idea. You recruit and develop players and when I think they’re good enough I will poach them from your roster! Welcome to what the new normal will look like in college football!"

I mean, he ain't wrong....

He's not wrong at all. Like I said---smart G5 coaches will fill the vast majority of thier rosters from the portal. Because you can only transfer without a penalty one time---players who are transferring INTO your program are more likely to be at your program for good. Those you recruit from HS---who therefor have never transferred----will be guys you have to continue to recruit every single day for the entire time they are at your school (because they can leave penalty free anytime they want). In real life---its extremely difficult to coach a kid and recruit him at the same time.

(02-19-2020 05:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats fine and good. If the schools are offering that and thats what you want---then I encourage students to go after those academic scholarships and give up football But if the schools dont want to offer that for football---and there are plenty of people willing to take what the school is offering for football---then why should the school pay more? Furthermore---If Im losing money on my operation----there is even less reason for me to pay more---especially if the labor pool of people willing to work for what Im offering is extremely deep.

Frankly, my feeling is the student athletes are being pretty well compensated---but I dont really begrudge them getting a share of the revenue the NCAA makes---as long as we all realize that when we count expenses---the NCAA as a business is losing its butt. The only reason the NCAA is in the black is because the member schools foot the expenses and are the ones showing red on most of their balance sheets.

Please let me be clear that I am talking about all sports, not just football or basketball. These limitations I am against affect other sports as well.

What you are saying here is denied by the NCAA. Which like I said before the NCAA is my main issue. Those things I posted are NCAA rules. You think the schools would prevent that if the rule didn't exist?

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't think it should have to be an "either/or". I think if a person has the talent to get both, then they should get both without issue. Why should a person have to choose one or the other if they have they have the qualifications for both and the rule is only in place to protect (IMO some absurd vision of) amateurism? You would think something like this would be encouraged not discouraged.

And of course you're free to have your view just like everyone else. And our views are like based off of different experiences. Mine started from seeing some of what the scholarship players had to deal with.

And not doubting you, but I don't remember it being said that the NCAA was losing money.

For example this pdf shows the NCAA's 17-18 Fiscal Year. I couldn't find 18-19 FY.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/fi...tement.pdf

This showed net assets in the black.

(02-19-2020 06:50 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 05:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats fine and good. If the schools are offering that and thats what you want---then I encourage students to go after those academic scholarships and give up football But if the schools dont want to offer that for football---and there are plenty of people willing to take what the school is offering for football---then why should the school pay more? Furthermore---If Im losing money on my operation----there is even less reason for me to pay more---especially if the labor pool of people willing to work for what Im offering is extremely deep.

Frankly, my feeling is the student athletes are being pretty well compensated---but I dont really begrudge them getting a share of the revenue the NCAA makes---as long as we all realize that when we count expenses---the NCAA as a business is losing its butt. The only reason the NCAA is in the black is because the member schools foot the expenses and are the ones showing red on most of their balance sheets.

Please let me be clear that I am talking about all sports, not just football or basketball. These limitations I am against affect sports as well.

What you are saying here is denied by the NCAA. Which like I said before the NCAA is my main issue. Those things I posted are NCAA rules. You think the schools would prevent that if the rule didn't exist?

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't think it should have to be an "either/or". I think if a person has the talent to get both, then they should get both without issue. Why should a person have to choose one or the other if they have they have the qualifications for both and the rule is only in place to protect (IMO some absurd vision of) amateurism? You would think something like this would be encouraged not discouraged.

And of course you're free to have your view just like everyone else. And our views are like based off of different experiences. Mine started from seeing some of what the scholarship players had to deal with.

And not doubting you, but I don't remember it being said that the NCAA was losing money.

For example this pdf shows the NCAA's 17-18 Fiscal Year. I couldn't find 18-19 FY.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/fi...tement.pdf

This showed net assets in the black.

I didnt say the NCAA is losing money. They are in the black---but the only reason they are is because the schools pay all the costs involved in producing the "product" the NCAA is selling. The schools involved in the NCAA as a group are losing money. Lets put it this way---take all the revenue earned by college sports and subtract all the expenses incurred to produce those athletic teams and events---and the result will be a big negative number.

And to be clear---The NCAA is just a entity that represents the schools as a whole (like a giant very inclusive conference). It has no ability to produce revenue without the schools providing athletic events. The funny thing is there really is no "NCAA". The NCAA is just a faceless entity run by the schools. All those rules were proposed by schools, tweaked by committees made up of member schools, and then voted on the membership at large. It's kinda like government. Government is also a huge faceless entity---but it also represents the entire national population because--as a group---we citizens are all ultimately responsible for what our government is.