(05-07-2022 07:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  Many of you are missing that less than 10% of fbs players get drafted and many of those don’t make teams. Basketball is lower.

There are over 11,000 FBS football players on FBS rosters and 237 were selected in the recent NFL draft. Around 2% were drafted and less than 2% will make it on an NFL roster. It would appear that, along with NIL opportunities, a lot of these FBS players should be taking advantage of the free educational opportunities at their school.

Are they not?

(05-07-2022 08:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 07:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  Many of you are missing that less than 10% of fbs players get drafted and many of those don’t make teams. Basketball is lower.

There are over 11,000 FBS football players on FBS rosters and 237 were selected in the recent NFL draft. Around 2% were drafted and less than 2% will make it on an NFL roster. It would appear that, along with NIL opportunities, a lot of these FBS players should be taking advantage of the free educational opportunities at their school.

The idea that there should be a separation from the colleges because their major is football just doesn't mesh with reality. Even the worst majors don't have only 2% of their grads employable.

And the fact that so few end up in the pros really calls into question the idea that they are all worth 6 figure salaries.

I'm not sure anyone is making that argument. Keep in mind that this isn't a debate over MAKING anyone pay student athletes x amount, it's about whether to ALLOW them to make whatever the market is willing to pay.

Yes, for the starting QB at Alabama, that might be 7 figures. You scoffed at the coaching salaries being referenced, but the highest paid pro players make more than the highest paid pro coaches. If that translates to college, then Bama's starting QB could (depending on the market) make more than Nick Saban. Maybe only for 1 season, but it's possible.

At a school like mine (ECU), that might only mean our starting QB makes high 5 figures, and a LB in the 2-deep might only make the 10-20k that students with part-time jobs make. My stance is that we shouldn't prevent them from doing that just because they are playing football and not working at a coffee shop.

People point to all the ridiculous "Alabama QB" situations but should remember that the vast majority would be more like the "ECU LB" situation.

(05-09-2022 06:05 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Uh huh. Show me someone who has consistently advocated for their school to refuse one-and-done basketball players, and for their school to fire a winning head football or basketball coach if more than 5% of his players leave the school without earning a degree there, and for coaches to make no more money than tenured professors at the same school.

When you identify that person, then I'll agree that, to that person, "student athlete" actually means something more than BS propaganda pushed on us by all the people who have made millions of dollars off of a system in which everyone but the athletes got paid.

What do coaches salaries have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you want amateurism or anything close to it, don’t limit the “for the love of the game” stuff to the athletes. Make it a modestly-paid (or less) “labor of love” for everyone working in the sport. Anyone who is cool with coaches making $5 million a year or more, and teams making $50 million a year from TV and requiring “donations” of $1000 or 10,000 per season ticket, but thinks athletes should get zero or just “a little spending money”... forget that. Regulate everyone in the industry or regulate no one.

Again that has absolutely zero to do with your original point. One and done and graduation rates are related to your comment. Coaches salaries is simply a "its NOT FAIR!!!!" argument. As I said about Terry's points, I just don't buy an ounce of that argument. Its a philosophical thing. I'm more sympathetic to Frank's free market arguments.

Again, for the second time, it is not about "fairness".

(Although it was monumental stupidity for the schools to brag about huge TV contracts and building projects and coaches salaries and to think the players would just sit there, meek and docile)

It is not about philosophy. I am not a philosopher. This is about battling for a bigger piece of the economic pie. Its a prize fight or a street fight (depending on how rough it gets), not a philosophy class.

It is about relative economic power. Its a constant battle and has always and will always be waged.

Here, the tide is shifting towards the players, the employees.

They now have the legal power and the ability to get more of the pie and extract more from their employers, the schools.

You don't like it. That is too damn bad. This is the new reality of college sports.

It will eventually kill college sports, not because it isn't fair or legal, because the consumer will tire of paying players and for the most part get nothing from it.

(05-07-2022 11:00 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:24 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  People who have no idea what’s it like to be a student athlete except what they see and hear on tv should probably take a step back and contemplate how they are so confident in their comments with so little direct experience.

Given you seem to know, what was your experience? I’m NOT trying to be snarky, I genuinely want to know if you know what you’re talking about.

Despite what has happened at some schools, like UNC, the vast majority of student-athletes are just as much students as they are athletes. Some have already pointed out the very small % that are drafted and/or go pro. You will find similarly small %'s in the other major sports.

JMO, but those who underplay the importance/value of a UG degree at some of these very high-quality schools is a mistake and plays into the mess that's been made as of late. Should athletes be able to benefit from NIL? Absolutely. But a UG degree means about an extra $1mil in lifetime earnings on top of whatever life skills that are also acquired along with the way. Let's not play into the idea that an education is worthless, there are plenty of athletes who never went pro and didn't finish their degree whose lives aren't that great and you've never heard of them....far more than go pro. Bet you those folks would do about anything to get a chance to finish what some here think has no value.

(05-09-2022 06:05 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Uh huh. Show me someone who has consistently advocated for their school to refuse one-and-done basketball players, and for their school to fire a winning head football or basketball coach if more than 5% of his players leave the school without earning a degree there, and for coaches to make no more money than tenured professors at the same school.

When you identify that person, then I'll agree that, to that person, "student athlete" actually means something more than BS propaganda pushed on us by all the people who have made millions of dollars off of a system in which everyone but the athletes got paid.

What do coaches salaries have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you want amateurism or anything close to it, don’t limit the “for the love of the game” stuff to the athletes. Make it a modestly-paid (or less) “labor of love” for everyone working in the sport. Anyone who is cool with coaches making $5 million a year or more, and teams making $50 million a year from TV and requiring “donations” of $1000 or 10,000 per season ticket, but thinks athletes should get zero or just “a little spending money”... forget that. Regulate everyone in the industry or regulate no one.

Again that has absolutely zero to do with your original point. One and done and graduation rates are related to your comment. Coaches salaries is simply a "its NOT FAIR!!!!" argument. As I said about Terry's points, I just don't buy an ounce of that argument. Its a philosophical thing. I'm more sympathetic to Frank's free market arguments.

Again, for the second time, it is not about "fairness".

(Although it was monumental stupidity for the schools to brag about huge TV contracts and building projects and coaches salaries and to think the players would just sit there, meek and docile)

It is not about philosophy. I am not a philosopher. This is about battling for a bigger piece of the economic pie. Its a prize fight or a street fight (depending on how rough it gets), not a philosophy class.

It is about relative economic power. Its a constant battle and has always and will always be waged.

Here, the tide is shifting towards the players, the employees.

They now have the legal power and the ability to get more of the pie and extract more from their employers, the schools.

You don't like it. That is too damn bad. This is the new reality of college sports.

I understand you. You have that union mindset of us against them. Management out to screw the masses. That IS a philosophical question. You just seem oblivious that anyone can not have that union mindset and you get angry about it.

(05-09-2022 09:58 AM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 11:00 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:24 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  People who have no idea what’s it like to be a student athlete except what they see and hear on tv should probably take a step back and contemplate how they are so confident in their comments with so little direct experience.

Given you seem to know, what was your experience? I’m NOT trying to be snarky, I genuinely want to know if you know what you’re talking about.

Despite what has happened at some schools, like UNC, the vast majority of student-athletes are just as much students as they are athletes. Some have already pointed out the very small % that are drafted and/or go pro. You will find similarly small %'s in the other major sports.

JMO, but those who underplay the importance/value of a UG degree at some of these very high-quality schools is a mistake and plays into the mess that's been made as of late. Should athletes be able to benefit from NIL? Absolutely. But a UG degree means about an extra $1mil in lifetime earnings on top of whatever life skills that are also acquired along with the way. Let's not play into the idea that an education is worthless, there are plenty of athletes who never went pro and didn't finish their degree whose lives aren't that great and you've never heard of them....far more than go pro. Bet you those folks would do about anything to get a chance to finish what some here think has no value.

Schools are taking it more seriously than they did in the 70s or 80s when people like Dexter Manley could spend 4 years at college while being functionally illiterate.

The resources the big schools give their athletes to keep them eligible are extensive. They get case managers, counselors, note takers, tutors, people who check in to make sure they are going to class. Mandatory study halls. Its not the era where they send them only to classes where the prof will give them As and Bs regardless of what they do.

(05-09-2022 07:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  It will eventually kill college sports, not because it isn't fair or legal, because the consumer will tire of paying players and for the most part get nothing from it.

It is possible that boosters will tire of paying players because, like pro athletes, at least one-third to one-half of the well-paid college football and basketball players will not perform up to the payor's expectations. Or even if those players perform well, it may not result in the college's team making the CFP or Final Four or whatever the booster defines as success.

That will point out the difference between paying college players and paying pro players -- if you own an NFL or NBA team, and pay millions to some guy who disappoints, you still make truckloads of money and the value of your franchise increases every year. Take this year's Lakers as an example. Westbrook makes $40 million and is a shadow of his best self. Davis made almost as much and was injured so much that he got the nickname "Street Clothes". But the Lakers are still one of the most profitable and most valuable franchises in the NBA, and the owners reap the benefit of that even when $40 million players underproduce.

When a college booster doesn't get what he thinks is his money's worth, he doesn't own the team. All the revenue generated by the team goes to the college. The team is "owned" by the college and not the booster, and couldn't be sold like a pro franchise anyway.

This is why boosters might tire of handing out NIL deals.

But -- that wouldn't be the end of college football or basketball. It would just be a market adjustment in how much star college athletes can command.

(05-07-2022 08:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 07:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  A distinct possibility by 2040

Triple A: 32-48 professional teams for college age athletes. No schooling, no NCAA, no Title IX, just honest football league. Highest level below the NFL and the players get paid directly.
Double A: similar to current FBS but student athletes get either directly or indirectly paid. No interaction with Triple A league but good players may get call-ups to Triple A giving the players a new alternative option other than NFL draft
Single A: similar to current FCS

You’re underestimating the value and synergies of the collegiate experience. Major football powerhouses such as Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan and Texas have entrenched interests (competitive advantages) that will allow them to adapt football. Unfortunately, the NCAA is currently a roadblock to an inevitable transformation. IMO, the highest level of football for 18 to 22 year olds will continue to be associated with student-athletes. In the future, these student-athletes may earn millions…but they’ll want the association with the universities academic missions.

It would be great for young athletes if an alternative football-only option develops. Some schools may license their team. Maybe the NFL creates a joint-venture with selected schools to develop football players in their trade. This business model could even be for-profit. It may efficiently handle niche needs (e.g., developing 18-22 year old athletes who don’t want an academic experience…even with tutoring and other assistance; no Title VII or IX complexities; less risky financial contracts for athletes). Regardless, I’m skeptical that this model will be very popular with fans. This model will most likely have the fan interest of Double A baseball or D-League basketball.

The NFL is never going to go for a minor league. The NFL is about making money and protecting the shield. They have college football and that really works well for them. They get 3-4 years of film on prospects for zero investment. They find out which kids work hard on the field, which kids work hard in the classroom, which kids are coachable, which kids are good teammates, which kids are leaders. If they earn a college degree, even better. Whatever college football decides to do with their structure, the NFL is not changing.

AND the NFL gets name recognition for their new players. The NBA benefits even more from that. The current system works very well for the those two leagues.

Very well for the NFL. Contrast that with the NBA one and done and high level of foreign players - NBA has to rig/market players for the general public to know them, in contrast with the NFL, where many of the draftees already have name recognition.

(05-09-2022 09:58 AM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 11:00 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:24 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  People who have no idea what’s it like to be a student athlete except what they see and hear on tv should probably take a step back and contemplate how they are so confident in their comments with so little direct experience.

Given you seem to know, what was your experience? I’m NOT trying to be snarky, I genuinely want to know if you know what you’re talking about.

Despite what has happened at some schools, like UNC, the vast majority of student-athletes are just as much students as they are athletes. Some have already pointed out the very small % that are drafted and/or go pro. You will find similarly small %'s in the other major sports.

JMO, but those who underplay the importance/value of a UG degree at some of these very high-quality schools is a mistake and plays into the mess that's been made as of late. Should athletes be able to benefit from NIL? Absolutely. But a UG degree means about an extra $1mil in lifetime earnings on top of whatever life skills that are also acquired along with the way. Let's not play into the idea that an education is worthless, there are plenty of athletes who never went pro and didn't finish their degree whose lives aren't that great and you've never heard of them....far more than go pro. Bet you those folks would do about anything to get a chance to finish what some here think has no value.

This is very true, IMO. We are already seeing this. According to ESPN, Zay Flowers turned down huge NIL offers to stay at BC. According to Zay, he was approached with these offers that were conditional on going into the transfer portal. Of course, this raises the question as to just how active specific school(s) were behind the scenes. At the very least, I can see this quickly getting out of control across CFB.

Zay turned these offers down to stay at BC. His statement comports almost exactly with your perspective. The specific quote from the attached article:

"The BC degree is a lot more valuable than the degree from a lot of schools reaching out. I can make more than $600,000 with my degree and the alumni network down the road."


(Of course, this is not an all or nothing proposition as Zay has recently signed very good NIL deals while staying at BC; just not a lucrative as the reported deals that would have required him to transfer.)

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-transfer

(05-09-2022 12:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 08:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 07:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  A distinct possibility by 2040

Triple A: 32-48 professional teams for college age athletes. No schooling, no NCAA, no Title IX, just honest football league. Highest level below the NFL and the players get paid directly.
Double A: similar to current FBS but student athletes get either directly or indirectly paid. No interaction with Triple A league but good players may get call-ups to Triple A giving the players a new alternative option other than NFL draft
Single A: similar to current FCS

You’re underestimating the value and synergies of the collegiate experience. Major football powerhouses such as Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan and Texas have entrenched interests (competitive advantages) that will allow them to adapt football. Unfortunately, the NCAA is currently a roadblock to an inevitable transformation. IMO, the highest level of football for 18 to 22 year olds will continue to be associated with student-athletes. In the future, these student-athletes may earn millions…but they’ll want the association with the universities academic missions.

It would be great for young athletes if an alternative football-only option develops. Some schools may license their team. Maybe the NFL creates a joint-venture with selected schools to develop football players in their trade. This business model could even be for-profit. It may efficiently handle niche needs (e.g., developing 18-22 year old athletes who don’t want an academic experience…even with tutoring and other assistance; no Title VII or IX complexities; less risky financial contracts for athletes). Regardless, I’m skeptical that this model will be very popular with fans. This model will most likely have the fan interest of Double A baseball or D-League basketball.

The NFL is never going to go for a minor league. The NFL is about making money and protecting the shield. They have college football and that really works well for them. They get 3-4 years of film on prospects for zero investment. They find out which kids work hard on the field, which kids work hard in the classroom, which kids are coachable, which kids are good teammates, which kids are leaders. If they earn a college degree, even better. Whatever college football decides to do with their structure, the NFL is not changing.

AND the NFL gets name recognition for their new players. The NBA benefits even more from that. The current system works very well for the those two leagues.

Very well for the NFL. Contrast that with the NBA one and done and high level of foreign players - NBA has to rig/market players for the general public to know them, in contrast with the NFL, where many of the draftees already have name recognition.

On top of that, casual fans only pay attention to college hoops during March Madness, so even a future NBA star gets at most a couple of weeks of prime exposure to casual fans. Regular season college football has far larger audiences than regular season college basketball, thus offering much more potential name recognition for future NFL stars.

(05-07-2022 06:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 01:59 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 12:28 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 07:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  A distinct possibility by 2040

Triple A: 32-48 professional teams for college age athletes. No schooling, no NCAA, no Title IX, just honest football league. Highest level below the NFL and the players get paid directly.
Double A: similar to current FBS but student athletes get either directly or indirectly paid. No interaction with Triple A league but good players may get call-ups to Triple A giving the players a new alternative option other than NFL draft
Single A: similar to current FCS

You’re underestimating the value and synergies of the collegiate experience. Major football powerhouses such as Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan and Texas have entrenched interests (competitive advantages) that will allow them to adapt football. Unfortunately, the NCAA is currently a roadblock to an inevitable transformation. IMO, the highest level of football for 18 to 22 year olds will continue to be associated with student-athletes. In the future, these student-athletes may earn millions…but they’ll want the association with the universities academic missions.

It would be great for young athletes if an alternative football-only option develops. Some schools may license their team. Maybe the NFL creates a joint-venture with selected schools to develop football players in their trade. This business model could even be for-profit. It may efficiently handle niche needs (e.g., developing 18-22 year old athletes who don’t want an academic experience…even with tutoring and other assistance; no Title VII or IX complexities; less risky financial contracts for athletes). Regardless, I’m skeptical that this model will be very popular with fans. This model will most likely have the fan interest of Double A baseball or D-League basketball.

I don’t know whether I am underestimating the value of collegiate experience but I certainly don’t underestimate the greed.

Not every P5 school are willing to spin off its football program as a non school entity and not every school would want to completely give up collegiate model (for example ND). Not all schools will be disired by the ESPN and the media anyway. These Triple A teams (32-48) would pretty much kill off all the competitions and will monopolize the Saturday TV programs just like the NFL monopolize the Sunday slots.

To me this is the model Swarbrick is expecting to happen. Many people on this board should be smarter than me and certianly have better English comprehension than I do. But people tend to hear only what they want to hear...

FWIW - I think Swarbrick is wrong in his prediction of the two options. I don’t believe that any university in the SEC, B1G, ACC or PAC needs (or will) spin-off their football program. These universities will modify their collegiate models to adequately address NIL and (potentially) pay-for-play.

The current model has been broken for decades. The NCAA has not provided leadership, preventing essential reforms in high level collegiate basketball and football. SCOTUS officially killed the false guiding principle (amateurism) of NCAA decisions. Some entities (D1 council, FBS, A5, individual conferences, etc.) can now step-up to design alternative collegiate models. IMO, there is enough commonality at the A5 (potentially even FBS) level that will allow universities to find common ground in a viable long-term collegiate model.

Your “triple A’ won’t occur because football powerhouse universities have much better alternatives.

I actually don’t want to see the Triple A league either. This would be the death of the college football we know and love. I bet Swarbrick doesn’t want this complete professionalization/commercialization either.

College football coaches, ADs, and commissioners have been silent about this. My guess is this. They merely talk about the “breakaway” because the complete professonalization / commercialization is not something the general public wants to hear. But let’s think about ND. It certainly has a powerhouse football program but it seems like ND is against the complete professionalization for a philosophical/religious reason. That means ND is in a position to lose its blue blood status if this Triple A NFL lite league comes to realization. In other words, Swarbrick has a good incentive to “leak” the ugly side of the breakaway. To me, that’s one reason why his interview is credible.

This professionalization/commericalization might be bad for college sports in general.

But the powerhouse programs have two choices: 1) the collegiate model where Title IX is in place and every move will be closely scrunized and 2) the business model where you would make much much more money because all the media money will be concentrated to the Triple A league and you don’t have to worry about the Title IX, the NCAA, and your academic mission. Which one do you think they will choose?

Lesson #1: don’t underestimate the other guy’s greed!

IMO - so long as the collegiate model can be modified, it will actually have more upside revenue potential for everyone. The current collegiate model is flawed because players rights are being restricted. Your “business model” won’t work because the overwhelming majority of student-athletes would lose the benefit of the scholarship system.

Think about the math & churn of student-athletes from a football powerhouse…
- Powerhouses recruit about 25 new student-athletes per year, and only about 5 per year actually ever make an NFL roster. In other words, only about 20% of recruits ever make the NFL.
- The large majority of NFL players have relatively short professional careers. Maybe 2 out of 5 professionals have careers that last > 5 years, maybe 1 out of 10 NFL players have careers that last > 10 years.

You need 85 to 100 committed players on a team each year. The “business model” with 48 teams would need to support over 4,000 athletes…without the educational benefit, the for-profit model can’t afford and/or won’t attract sufficient depth of talent. The collegiate model provides better minimum threshold benefits to that large population of potential future professionals…higher education is a valuable benefit that enhances participation in the sport.

(05-09-2022 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 06:05 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  What do coaches salaries have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you want amateurism or anything close to it, don’t limit the “for the love of the game” stuff to the athletes. Make it a modestly-paid (or less) “labor of love” for everyone working in the sport. Anyone who is cool with coaches making $5 million a year or more, and teams making $50 million a year from TV and requiring “donations” of $1000 or 10,000 per season ticket, but thinks athletes should get zero or just “a little spending money”... forget that. Regulate everyone in the industry or regulate no one.

Again that has absolutely zero to do with your original point. One and done and graduation rates are related to your comment. Coaches salaries is simply a "its NOT FAIR!!!!" argument. As I said about Terry's points, I just don't buy an ounce of that argument. Its a philosophical thing. I'm more sympathetic to Frank's free market arguments.

Again, for the second time, it is not about "fairness".

(Although it was monumental stupidity for the schools to brag about huge TV contracts and building projects and coaches salaries and to think the players would just sit there, meek and docile)

It is not about philosophy. I am not a philosopher. This is about battling for a bigger piece of the economic pie. Its a prize fight or a street fight (depending on how rough it gets), not a philosophy class.

It is about relative economic power. Its a constant battle and has always and will always be waged.

Here, the tide is shifting towards the players, the employees.

They now have the legal power and the ability to get more of the pie and extract more from their employers, the schools.

You don't like it. That is too damn bad. This is the new reality of college sports.

I understand you. You have that union mindset of us against them. Management out to screw the masses. That IS a philosophical question. You just seem oblivious that anyone can not have that union mindset and you get angry about it.

Everything in life is "us against them" and always has been.

Isn't capitalism itself all about conflict and competition, as is sports?

Being a litigation attorney for over three decades only reinforced that concept.

Its all about picking a side, that is all.

If you are not one of "us", then you are an enemy or at least a potential one.

That isn't a philosophy, that is just life.

You favor the people at the top keeping most of the loot. That is an "us against them" thing, too.

I favor the opposite. We are on different sides, are we not? We both picked our sides. Take care.

(05-09-2022 02:02 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 06:05 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 07:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If you want amateurism or anything close to it, don’t limit the “for the love of the game” stuff to the athletes. Make it a modestly-paid (or less) “labor of love” for everyone working in the sport. Anyone who is cool with coaches making $5 million a year or more, and teams making $50 million a year from TV and requiring “donations” of $1000 or 10,000 per season ticket, but thinks athletes should get zero or just “a little spending money”... forget that. Regulate everyone in the industry or regulate no one.

Again that has absolutely zero to do with your original point. One and done and graduation rates are related to your comment. Coaches salaries is simply a "its NOT FAIR!!!!" argument. As I said about Terry's points, I just don't buy an ounce of that argument. Its a philosophical thing. I'm more sympathetic to Frank's free market arguments.

Again, for the second time, it is not about "fairness".

(Although it was monumental stupidity for the schools to brag about huge TV contracts and building projects and coaches salaries and to think the players would just sit there, meek and docile)

It is not about philosophy. I am not a philosopher. This is about battling for a bigger piece of the economic pie. Its a prize fight or a street fight (depending on how rough it gets), not a philosophy class.

It is about relative economic power. Its a constant battle and has always and will always be waged.

Here, the tide is shifting towards the players, the employees.

They now have the legal power and the ability to get more of the pie and extract more from their employers, the schools.

You don't like it. That is too damn bad. This is the new reality of college sports.

I understand you. You have that union mindset of us against them. Management out to screw the masses. That IS a philosophical question. You just seem oblivious that anyone can not have that union mindset and you get angry about it.

Everything in life is "us against them" and always has been.

Isn't capitalism itself all about conflict and competition, as is sports?

Being a litigation attorney for over three decades only reinforced that concept.

Its all about picking a side, that is all.

If you are not one of "us", then you are an enemy or at least a potential one.

That isn't a philosophy, that is just life.

You favor the people at the top keeping most of the loot. That is an "us against them" thing, too.

I favor the opposite. We are on different sides, are we not? We both picked our sides. Take care.

Nothing ever pisses me off as much as when one side claims their form of predation to be civilized, decent, and acceptable. I despise the camouflage of respectability and the perfume of privilege! The only honest view is that it is, and always has been, a struggle for the resources necessary to survive and thrive, or to hoard said resources for power and control.

You know what I think of this? The broken system is at the hands of the P5, and not the NCAA. NCAA refuses to hand out punishments when they did to SMU back in the 80s now or we would have seen UNC, Miami Florida and Baylor as examples of their sports programs getting the death penalties. Instead, they made things fester for so long to a point that the NCAA became useless because the P5 are driving the bus.