and in case you were wondering what p5 thinks of g5 - 2-8 south carolina is going bowing but 9-2 army isnt.

(12-20-2020 07:02 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  and in case you were wondering what p5 thinks of g5 - 2-8 south carolina is going bowing but 9-2 army isnt.

I do NOT know the particulars in this case or most any case, but the regular season and bowl season are so screwed up I wouldn't draw any conclusions...

I do not know if Army is tied to a bowl which isn't being played this year.

S. Carolina might be replacing a SEC team which declined. Most bowl slots are 'tie-ins.'

EDIT:

https://thespun.com/independents/army/ar...y%20games.

Some times it is a good idea to Google before posting....

EDIT2:

If there is a goat in this, it is the NCAA. They made it too easy for conferences without enough teams with winning records to supply ANY team.

So a bowl game is contracted with say the 7th SEC team. The 7th SEC team has a losing record. The NCAA said records don't matter this year. So the SEC fills the bowl slot with a team with a bad record.

Yet the bowl is not permitted to go at-large.

As far as the MAC, we've lost bowls (Detroit, Bahamas, etc.). That hurt. We have good teams which will be sitting home.

(12-20-2020 06:47 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:49 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  Personally I would have no problem with legislating that the NFL create a developmental league. Most of the owners operate teams that play in taxpayer financed stadiums and the NFL has used the NCAA as a free farm league for far too long as well. If a player wants to get paid to play football he would have an avenue to do so just like a baseball player does. If he wants to play college football and get a free education, then he must maintain amateur status. He would have a choice.

Just THIRTY athletic departments at the numerous educational institutions across the country are revenue positive. NCAA football and basketball do generate huge revenues but also have an immense cost structure. CBS 60 minutes just had a story that reported the recent revenue declines in football translated into Universities simply cutting Olympic programs like gymnastics and track and field. Paying college athletes is simply unsustainable.

what does that mean? legislate that the NFL creates a developmental league? the NFL wont create a minor league because the NCAA occupies that space.

when businesses dont make money - they dont get to not pay their employees.

if only 30 programs make money then maybe some of the other p5 schools should figure out how to be lean - like in the real world of businesses.

Dan I admire you but now you are just being plain silly.

I suggested legislation because the NFL as you correctly stated has no incentive to create a minor league.

From your post, I assume you propose that only ONLY the most successful programs pay their players while the others do not as they lose money. That will only elevate an already unlevel playing field to proportions that are simply untenable. EMU with a stadium capacity of 30K does not have the assets to compete with U-M and their 110K fan attendance and now you want to let U-M pay their players? Any sense of competitive equity will be destroyed and NCAA football as a result. A thirty team league will not cut it and fan interest will indeed as a result wane accordingly.

I spent almost 40 years of my life in business. Cost cutting and running lean, as you referenced are sacred principles in that world. The slogan "you cannot save yourself to a profit", however is the overriding axiom. Programs like EMU football have zero chance of ever being profitable, much like any academic department. The athletics program, however, does provide far more desirable University exposure than any other endeavor. After all do you think that a blog like this has the participation for any other EMU activity?

(12-20-2020 07:31 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 06:47 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:49 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  Personally I would have no problem with legislating that the NFL create a developmental league. Most of the owners operate teams that play in taxpayer financed stadiums and the NFL has used the NCAA as a free farm league for far too long as well. If a player wants to get paid to play football he would have an avenue to do so just like a baseball player does. If he wants to play college football and get a free education, then he must maintain amateur status. He would have a choice.

Just THIRTY athletic departments at the numerous educational institutions across the country are revenue positive. NCAA football and basketball do generate huge revenues but also have an immense cost structure. CBS 60 minutes just had a story that reported the recent revenue declines in football translated into Universities simply cutting Olympic programs like gymnastics and track and field. Paying college athletes is simply unsustainable.

what does that mean? legislate that the NFL creates a developmental league? the NFL wont create a minor league because the NCAA occupies that space.

when businesses dont make money - they dont get to not pay their employees.

if only 30 programs make money then maybe some of the other p5 schools should figure out how to be lean - like in the real world of businesses.

Dan I admire you but now you are just being plain silly.

I suggested legislation because the NFL as you correctly stated has no incentive to create a minor league.

From your post, I assume you propose that only ONLY the most successful programs pay their players while the others do not as they lose money. That will only elevate an already unlevel playing field to proportions that are simply untenable. EMU with a stadium capacity of 30K does not have the assets to compete with U-M and their 110K fan attendance and now you want to let U-M pay their players? Any sense of competitive equity will be destroyed and NCAA football as a result. A thirty team league will not cut it and fan interest will indeed as a result wane accordingly.

I spent almost 40 years of my life in business. Cost cutting and running lean, as you referenced are sacred principles in that world. The slogan "you cannot save yourself to a profit", however is the overriding axiom. Programs like EMU football have zero chance of ever being profitable, much like any academic department. The athletics program, however, does provide far more desirable University exposure than any other endeavor. After all do you think that a blog like this has the participation for any other EMU activity?

so heres where the rubber hits the road - big schools benegfit from being part of the larger system that is college foodball. the ecosystem as a whole is a strength unto itself. what then about profit sharing? bigger schools subsidizing smaller schools officially - not through paycheck games but through yearly checks. consider that pro leagues revenue share. in this scenario - the EMUs of the world become the Tampa Rays.

you can pay every kid on an 85 man roster 35k a year for 3 million. pay every player at 120 schools 35k and it costs 357 million. the big ten network alone pays each of the 14 schools in the conference 55 million a year. you can find the money somewhere in the machine is what im saying.

(12-20-2020 07:31 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 06:47 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:49 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  Personally I would have no problem with legislating that the NFL create a developmental league. Most of the owners operate teams that play in taxpayer financed stadiums and the NFL has used the NCAA as a free farm league for far too long as well. If a player wants to get paid to play football he would have an avenue to do so just like a baseball player does. If he wants to play college football and get a free education, then he must maintain amateur status. He would have a choice.

Just THIRTY athletic departments at the numerous educational institutions across the country are revenue positive. NCAA football and basketball do generate huge revenues but also have an immense cost structure. CBS 60 minutes just had a story that reported the recent revenue declines in football translated into Universities simply cutting Olympic programs like gymnastics and track and field. Paying college athletes is simply unsustainable.

what does that mean? legislate that the NFL creates a developmental league? the NFL wont create a minor league because the NCAA occupies that space.

when businesses dont make money - they dont get to not pay their employees.

if only 30 programs make money then maybe some of the other p5 schools should figure out how to be lean - like in the real world of businesses.

Dan I admire you but now you are just being plain silly.

I suggested legislation because the NFL as you correctly stated has no incentive to create a minor league.

From your post, I assume you propose that only ONLY the most successful programs pay their players while the others do not as they lose money. That will only elevate an already unlevel playing field to proportions that are simply untenable. EMU with a stadium capacity of 30K does not have the assets to compete with U-M and their 110K fan attendance and now you want to let U-M pay their players? Any sense of competitive equity will be destroyed and NCAA football as a result. A thirty team league will not cut it and fan interest will indeed as a result wane accordingly.

I spent almost 40 years of my life in business. Cost cutting and running lean, as you referenced are sacred principles in that world. The slogan "you cannot save yourself to a profit", however is the overriding axiom. Programs like EMU football have zero chance of ever being profitable, much like any academic department. The athletics program, however, does provide far more desirable University exposure than any other endeavor. After all do you think that a blog like this has the participation for any other EMU activity?

Our current model is of a system where players are students who receive scholarship benefits relative to their sport.

All scholarship FB players at EMU are treated the same in terms of benefits (tuition, R&B monies, stipend, etc.).

This is essentially true at all MAC schools. The only difference is that the stipend differs depending on the COL in individual cities.

And a scholarship football player at say UBuffalo may get more stipend than a scholarship football player at say Illinois.

IF UofM was able to implement a 'profit sharing' model, they would run away with things. Can you imagine if they could offer say 2K a month stipend because their program is very (financially) successful?

What if Indiana could only afford 1K / month? OR EMU $250.

The idea is to level the playing field as far as legally possible.

(12-20-2020 07:31 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 06:47 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:49 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  Personally I would have no problem with legislating that the NFL create a developmental league. Most of the owners operate teams that play in taxpayer financed stadiums and the NFL has used the NCAA as a free farm league for far too long as well. If a player wants to get paid to play football he would have an avenue to do so just like a baseball player does. If he wants to play college football and get a free education, then he must maintain amateur status. He would have a choice.

Just THIRTY athletic departments at the numerous educational institutions across the country are revenue positive. NCAA football and basketball do generate huge revenues but also have an immense cost structure. CBS 60 minutes just had a story that reported the recent revenue declines in football translated into Universities simply cutting Olympic programs like gymnastics and track and field. Paying college athletes is simply unsustainable.

what does that mean? legislate that the NFL creates a developmental league? the NFL wont create a minor league because the NCAA occupies that space.

when businesses dont make money - they dont get to not pay their employees.

if only 30 programs make money then maybe some of the other p5 schools should figure out how to be lean - like in the real world of businesses.

Dan I admire you but now you are just being plain silly.

I suggested legislation because the NFL as you correctly stated has no incentive to create a minor league.

From your post, I assume you propose that only ONLY the most successful programs pay their players while the others do not as they lose money. That will only elevate an already unlevel playing field to proportions that are simply untenable. EMU with a stadium capacity of 30K does not have the assets to compete with U-M and their 110K fan attendance and now you want to let U-M pay their players? Any sense of competitive equity will be destroyed and NCAA football as a result. A thirty team league will not cut it and fan interest will indeed as a result wane accordingly.

I spent almost 40 years of my life in business. Cost cutting and running lean, as you referenced are sacred principles in that world. The slogan "you cannot save yourself to a profit", however is the overriding axiom. Programs like EMU football have zero chance of ever being profitable, much like any academic department. The athletics program, however, does provide far more desirable University exposure than any other endeavor. After all do you think that a blog like this has the participation for any other EMU activity?

Our current model is of a system where players are students who receive scholarship benefits relative to their sport.

All scholarship FB players at EMU are treated the same in terms of benefits (tuition, R&B monies, stipend, etc.).

This is essentially true at all MAC schools. The only difference is that the stipend differs depending on the COL in individual cities.

And a scholarship football player at say UBuffalo may get more stipend than a scholarship football player at say Illinois.

IF UofM was able to implement a 'profit sharing' model, they would run away with things. Can you imagine if they could offer say 2K a month stipend because their program is very (financially) successful?

What if Indiana could only afford 1K / month? OR EMU $250.

The idea is to level the playing field as far as legally possible.

(12-20-2020 07:42 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 07:31 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 06:47 PM)dansplaining Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:49 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  Personally I would have no problem with legislating that the NFL create a developmental league. Most of the owners operate teams that play in taxpayer financed stadiums and the NFL has used the NCAA as a free farm league for far too long as well. If a player wants to get paid to play football he would have an avenue to do so just like a baseball player does. If he wants to play college football and get a free education, then he must maintain amateur status. He would have a choice.

Just THIRTY athletic departments at the numerous educational institutions across the country are revenue positive. NCAA football and basketball do generate huge revenues but also have an immense cost structure. CBS 60 minutes just had a story that reported the recent revenue declines in football translated into Universities simply cutting Olympic programs like gymnastics and track and field. Paying college athletes is simply unsustainable.

what does that mean? legislate that the NFL creates a developmental league? the NFL wont create a minor league because the NCAA occupies that space.

when businesses dont make money - they dont get to not pay their employees.

if only 30 programs make money then maybe some of the other p5 schools should figure out how to be lean - like in the real world of businesses.

Dan I admire you but now you are just being plain silly.

I suggested legislation because the NFL as you correctly stated has no incentive to create a minor league.

From your post, I assume you propose that only ONLY the most successful programs pay their players while the others do not as they lose money. That will only elevate an already unlevel playing field to proportions that are simply untenable. EMU with a stadium capacity of 30K does not have the assets to compete with U-M and their 110K fan attendance and now you want to let U-M pay their players? Any sense of competitive equity will be destroyed and NCAA football as a result. A thirty team league will not cut it and fan interest will indeed as a result wane accordingly.

I spent almost 40 years of my life in business. Cost cutting and running lean, as you referenced are sacred principles in that world. The slogan "you cannot save yourself to a profit", however is the overriding axiom. Programs like EMU football have zero chance of ever being profitable, much like any academic department. The athletics program, however, does provide far more desirable University exposure than any other endeavor. After all do you think that a blog like this has the participation for any other EMU activity?

so heres where the rubber hits the road - big schools benegfit from being part of the larger system that is college foodball. the ecosystem as a whole is a strength unto itself. what then about profit sharing? bigger schools subsidizing smaller schools officially - not through paycheck games but through yearly checks. consider that pro leagues revenue share. in this scenario - the EMUs of the world become the Tampa Rays.

you can pay every kid on an 85 man roster 35k a year for 3 million. pay every player at 120 schools 35k and it costs 357 million. the big ten network alone pays each of the 14 schools in the conference 55 million a year. you can find the money somewhere in the machine is what im saying.

I heard congresswoman Debbie Dingell whimsically and capriciously state that Universal health coverage could easily be achieved without increasing cost just by centralizing billing within the government. That comment obviously was fiscal fantasy but probably closer to reality than yours. Yep we will find that money somewhere.