Destruction of regional conferences that made sense for financial and rivalry purposes: check

NIL payments for amateur athletes that were getting benefits already (tuition, etc): check

An unfettered transfer market (free agency): check

64 teams in four conferences and Notre Dame: check

Uneven financial distribution within those conferences: seemingly on the way

Breakaway from the NCAA for those four conferences: on the way

Financial and academic reality causing half of the breakaway teams eventually returning to the NCAA: highly likely

24 team professional college football league: you betcha

40smokingcannon interest in any of the 65 or 20ish teams and what happens to them: no fcuks given

A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

To an extent sure, but I don't buy season tickets and donate what I do to the pirate club for any particular person on the field. The athletes and coaches come and go but my comment doesn't ebb or flow with any of them. I do so bc I'm an alum and I love my school.

There is value in the scholarship, just bc someone chooses a worthless major or fails to utilize that education properly doesn't mean the educate doesn't have value. Athletes also receive free room, board, meals, and cost of living stipends.

This isn't to say that they should be limited from benefiting from their likeness or getting a job similar to every other student, but if you're honest they're not like every other student are they?

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I'm guessing you're a work from home person?

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I absolutely do not get this argument. If a college's sports program looses money should they then charge the athletes?

The school makes an offer (scholarship in return for playing a sport) - if the potential student thinks it is a good deal and is not getting a better deal - they take it. If they have a better offer (not just money, experience, exposure, education, what they like, etc.) then they take the better deal.

Putting aside the argument that a scholarship is not a job, even if you think it is a job, every job generates more value (on average) for the employer than the employee. It literally has to or no one would hire anyone.

Secondly, the primary value comes from the institution, not the players. I watch my school's games because it is my school and most people do similarly. If the NFL started a D-league and picked out the top 300 HS players every year, would you watch that (with the best players) or your team? While it would probably generate some interest, college football would still be college football because there is a tie to those institutions and sports are a means to keep up tie (and fun).

(08-09-2023 08:36 AM)40smokingcannon Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I'm guessing you're a work from home person?

You’re going to have to explain this one to me

(08-09-2023 08:51 AM)Vonz90 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I absolutely do not get this argument. If a college's sports program looses money should they then charge the athletes?

The school makes an offer (scholarship in return for playing a sport) - if the potential student thinks it is a good deal and is not getting a better deal - they take it. If they have a better offer (not just money, experience, exposure, education, what they like, etc.) then they take the better deal.

Putting aside the argument that a scholarship is not a job, even if you think it is a job, every job generates more value (on average) for the employer than the employee. It literally has to or no one would hire anyone.

Secondly, the primary value comes from the institution, not the players. I watch my school's games because it is my school and most people do similarly. If the NFL started a D-league and picked out the top 300 HS players every year, would you watch that (with the best players) or your team? While it would probably generate some interest, college football would still be college football because there is a tie to those institutions and sports are a means to keep up tie (and fun).

There is no program without the players. If players don't matter, why do all of the coaches spend so much of their time and resources fighting over the top prospects, and trying to win games? Do you think the institutions have a brand let alone much value without this? Fact of the matter is that college sports are big business. If the NFL started a D-league and it generated the same revenue, you can bet your life the players would be getting paid accordingly. Believing that college athletes are students first is a fantasy at most (likely all) schools that compete at a high level.

Although the process needs fine tuning, NIL and affording athletes the ability to more easily transfer is a good thing, and not the factor that's destroying college sports. If you want to point fingers, it's the media companies in collusion with the conferences destroying college sports. History, tradition, and regional rivalries are a primary component to what makes college sports great; but with every realignment iteration, this ideal slips further and further away. What good is it when the teams you play are too far away to travel for away games, or when established rivalries are arbitrarily broken overnight (losing the ability to even schedule long-standing opponents?)

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

Maybe they should work on commission, then. And skip the education. Just a job.

This attitude will be the death of college athletics.

Most schools go in the hole supporting athletics. Rice does. How about Temple?

(08-09-2023 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

Maybe they should work on commission, then. And skip the education. Just a job.

This attitude will be the death of college athletics.

Most schools go in the hole supporting athletics. Rice does. How about Temple?

Nobody is forcing these schools to pump money into their programs to their detriment. If it culminates to a net loss, they can always opt out.

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

You do realize that most schools do not run a profit and are in fact in the red. Others fake the numbers and divert a ton of money from student fees..... which IMO is BS if they ever consider using that money down the road to pay the athletes......

(08-09-2023 11:43 AM)otown Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

You do realize that most schools do not run a profit and are in fact in the red. Others fake the numbers and divert a ton of money from student fees..... which IMO is BS if they ever consider using that money down the road to pay the athletes......

You do realize that NIL doesn't come from the school's budget, right?

(08-09-2023 11:39 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

Maybe they should work on commission, then. And skip the education. Just a job.

This attitude will be the death of college athletics.

Most schools go in the hole supporting athletics. Rice does. How about Temple?

Nobody is forcing these schools to pump money into their programs to their detriment. If it culminates to a net loss, they can always opt out.

There are arguments both pro and con for being involved in sports. The value is essentially one of marketing. On the net, being in big time sports increases the exposure and profile of the schools to a degree that a similar investment in other marking methods would not. That does not actually mean it is a good investment for every potential school nor that the law of diminishing returns does not also apply.

(08-09-2023 11:58 AM)Vonz90 Wrote:  There are arguments both pro and con for being involved in sports. The value is essentially one of marketing. On the net, being in big time sports increases the exposure and profile of the schools to a degree that a similar investment in other marking methods would not. That does not actually mean it is a good investment for every potential school nor that the law of diminishing returns does not also apply.

Of course, it has to make sense for each individual institution.

(08-09-2023 08:51 AM)Vonz90 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I absolutely do not get this argument. If a college's sports program looses money should they then charge the athletes?

The school makes an offer (scholarship in return for playing a sport) - if the potential student thinks it is a good deal and is not getting a better deal - they take it. If they have a better offer (not just money, experience, exposure, education, what they like, etc.) then they take the better deal.

Putting aside the argument that a scholarship is not a job, even if you think it is a job, every job generates more value (on average) for the employer than the employee. It literally has to or no one would hire anyone.

Secondly, the primary value comes from the institution, not the players. I watch my school's games because it is my school and most people do similarly. If the NFL started a D-league and picked out the top 300 HS players every year, would you watch that (with the best players) or your team? While it would probably generate some interest, college football would still be college football because there is a tie to those institutions and sports are a means to keep up tie (and fun).

Furthermore, in purely monetary terms, scholarship is greater than just the amount of dollars that is attached to it. It may be the difference between working for McD's and Merrill Lynch

(08-09-2023 08:14 AM)40smokingcannon Wrote:  Destruction of regional conferences that made sense for financial and rivalry purposes: check

NIL payments for amateur athletes that were getting benefits already (tuition, etc): check

An unfettered transfer market (free agency): check

64 teams in four conferences and Notre Dame: check

Uneven financial distribution within those conferences: seemingly on the way

Breakaway from the NCAA for those four conferences: on the way

Financial and academic reality causing half of the breakaway teams eventually returning to the NCAA: highly likely

24 team professional college football league: you betcha

40smokingcannon interest in any of the 65 or 20ish teams and what happens to them: no fcuks given

They can never get it right in the end for college football on the D1 level. Conferences own their rights and negotiate financial terms on their own resulting in a permanent competitive imbalance. The NFL gets it.

They can talk P all they want, but there is nothing autonomous about the four with money that desperate.

Eventually, there will have to be a split. There's not enough money to pay 64 teams $90M. There isn't enough to fill the coffers of our higher educational institutions.

There's a way to combat it, but it will take a long time and for a lot of trained sheep to wake up. Until then, most will make what their allowed!

(08-09-2023 12:26 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:51 AM)Vonz90 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I absolutely do not get this argument. If a college's sports program looses money should they then charge the athletes?

The school makes an offer (scholarship in return for playing a sport) - if the potential student thinks it is a good deal and is not getting a better deal - they take it. If they have a better offer (not just money, experience, exposure, education, what they like, etc.) then they take the better deal.

Putting aside the argument that a scholarship is not a job, even if you think it is a job, every job generates more value (on average) for the employer than the employee. It literally has to or no one would hire anyone.

Secondly, the primary value comes from the institution, not the players. I watch my school's games because it is my school and most people do similarly. If the NFL started a D-league and picked out the top 300 HS players every year, would you watch that (with the best players) or your team? While it would probably generate some interest, college football would still be college football because there is a tie to those institutions and sports are a means to keep up tie (and fun).

Furthermore, in purely monetary terms, scholarship is greater than just the amount of dollars that is attached to it. It may be the difference between working for McD's and Merrill Lynch

I think of a football scholarship as essentially a part time job that pays (in Rice's case) about $75K/year toward the expense of attending Rice. Sure beats all the people trying to pay their way through a school by working for $12-15/hour at TacoAmigo. Yet there are some who think the athletes on scholly are being cheated somehow.

So everybody ask yourself this question: would you rather your kid get an athletic scholarship or a job at TacoAmigo? Both the school and TacoAmigo are going to make money off your kid's efforts, but the two jobs are not equal, in any way.

(08-09-2023 02:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 12:26 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:51 AM)Vonz90 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I absolutely do not get this argument. If a college's sports program looses money should they then charge the athletes?

The school makes an offer (scholarship in return for playing a sport) - if the potential student thinks it is a good deal and is not getting a better deal - they take it. If they have a better offer (not just money, experience, exposure, education, what they like, etc.) then they take the better deal.

Putting aside the argument that a scholarship is not a job, even if you think it is a job, every job generates more value (on average) for the employer than the employee. It literally has to or no one would hire anyone.

Secondly, the primary value comes from the institution, not the players. I watch my school's games because it is my school and most people do similarly. If the NFL started a D-league and picked out the top 300 HS players every year, would you watch that (with the best players) or your team? While it would probably generate some interest, college football would still be college football because there is a tie to those institutions and sports are a means to keep up tie (and fun).

Furthermore, in purely monetary terms, scholarship is greater than just the amount of dollars that is attached to it. It may be the difference between working for McD's and Merrill Lynch

I think of a football scholarship as essentially a part time job that pays (in Rice's case) about $75K/year toward the expense of attending Rice. Sure beats all the people trying to pay their way through a school by working for $12-15/hour at TacoAmigo. Yet there are some who think the athletes on scholly are being cheated somehow.

So everybody ask yourself this question: would you rather your kid get an athletic scholarship or a job at TacoAmigo? Both the school and TacoAmigo are going to make money off your kid's efforts, but the two jobs are not equal, in any way.

If you think the time investment required to play football at the DI level amounts to a part time job, I'm not sure you're making a realistic comparison. Furthermore, the tuition to attend Rice is atypical and on the high end of the spectrum, very much being an outlier. Frankly, it's very difficult to take your comments seriously.

I said it when we were here and I'll say it now.

The P...4 needs the G5. At least close to half the OOC games are G5's. Aint no way that can just up and go away.

(08-09-2023 02:10 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 02:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 12:26 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:51 AM)Vonz90 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 08:25 AM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  A college athletics scholarship is in no way equal to the amount of money generated by the athletes for the institutions.

I know you had more points to make but I couldn't read farther than that.

I absolutely do not get this argument. If a college's sports program looses money should they then charge the athletes?

The school makes an offer (scholarship in return for playing a sport) - if the potential student thinks it is a good deal and is not getting a better deal - they take it. If they have a better offer (not just money, experience, exposure, education, what they like, etc.) then they take the better deal.

Putting aside the argument that a scholarship is not a job, even if you think it is a job, every job generates more value (on average) for the employer than the employee. It literally has to or no one would hire anyone.

Secondly, the primary value comes from the institution, not the players. I watch my school's games because it is my school and most people do similarly. If the NFL started a D-league and picked out the top 300 HS players every year, would you watch that (with the best players) or your team? While it would probably generate some interest, college football would still be college football because there is a tie to those institutions and sports are a means to keep up tie (and fun).

Furthermore, in purely monetary terms, scholarship is greater than just the amount of dollars that is attached to it. It may be the difference between working for McD's and Merrill Lynch

I think of a football scholarship as essentially a part time job that pays (in Rice's case) about $75K/year toward the expense of attending Rice. Sure beats all the people trying to pay their way through a school by working for $12-15/hour at TacoAmigo. Yet there are some who think the athletes on scholly are being cheated somehow.

So everybody ask yourself this question: would you rather your kid get an athletic scholarship or a job at TacoAmigo? Both the school and TacoAmigo are going to make money off your kid's efforts, but the two jobs are not equal, in any way.

If you think the time investment required to play football at the DI level amounts to a part time job, I'm not sure you're making a realistic comparison. Furthermore, the tuition to attend Rice is atypical and on the high end of the spectrum, very much being an outlier. Frankly, it's very difficult to take your comments seriously.

If one spends an average of 5 hours/day on it, that's 35 hours a week. Less than full time.

And yes, Rice's tuition is very high - that just makes the value of the scholarship higher without adding a minute to the time investment. But high tuitions are becoming more common. What is the out of state tuition at your school?

But the quid pro quo is easy to see. Do what is needed to play football, and we will reduce your cost to attend school here to zero.

Same as the quid pro quo for TacoAmigo. Work here X hours a week and we will pay you XXX.XX which you can use however you want, including paying tuition at ABC University.

(08-09-2023 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If one spends an average of 5 hours/day on it, that's 35 hours a week. Less than full time.

Five hours a day sounds low. How are you estimating that? Here's another take:

Quote:Consider that, for a DI football player, an average day during the season includes four to five hours in meetings, two hours on the practice field, 90 minutes in the weight room...

That’s just during the week. Remember that weekends are for games, travel, film, and more meetings.

It adds up, and the off-season is a full plate too. High level college athletics is a full-time proposition.

(08-09-2023 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And yes, Rice's tuition is very high - that just makes the value of the scholarship higher without adding a minute to the time investment. But high tuitions are becoming more common. What is the out of state tuition at your school?

But the quid pro quo is easy to see. Do what is needed to play football, and we will reduce your cost to attend school here to zero.

Same as the quid pro quo for TacoAmigo. Work here X hours a week and we will pay you XXX.XX which you can use however you want, including paying tuition at ABC University.

For an average to below-average player, yes, it's not a bad deal. They're also not the players who stand to benefit greatly from NIL. For the players who can command a large paycheck through NIL, tuition is cold comfort. These are players who are risking their bodies and future livelihood for the school, playing a key role in the operations of a business generating tens of millions in revenue. They deserve to be compensated accordingly.