NCAA approves unlimited meals and snacks.

[dales5050]

I think that, 25-30 years from now, the landscape of television will have changed so dramatically, that this is going to be a non-issue. Television is moving toward "on-demand" delivery services, mostly over broadband internet connections. How long do you think it is going to be until a school like ND realizes that they can stream their own telecast over the internet, into millions of homes, without the networks, and keep all of the advertising revenue? No satellite trucks needed. A $300 GoPro camera is already way better than the top of the line television cameras from 20 years ago. As the streaming delivery services become more sophisticated and commonplace, it is only a matter of time before schools looking to maximize their brand just completely cut out the middleman and generate their revenue straight from the advertisers.

The technology is just the vehicle. The product is what matters.

You can currently make a movie and get it in front of people on 100 different devices but that does not mean anyone is going to watch it.

The brand is the players. Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. The advertisers pay to be put in front of viewers and viewers are not going to watch a poor product.

Again, if you want to talk about product v. value, run your theory of direct distribution for a team like the University of Buffalo or even a team with some NC's in the case like Harvard or Yale. Let me know what type of ad revenue you're projecting for games of that quality.

 

[kmoose]

The technology is just the vehicle. The product is what matters.

You can currently make a movie and get it in front of people on 100 different devices but that does not mean anyone is going to watch it.

The brand is the players. Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. The advertisers pay to be put in front of viewers and viewers are not going to watch a poor product.

Again, if you want to talk about product v. value, run your theory of direct distribution for a team like the University of Buffalo or even a team with some NC's in the case like Harvard or Yale. Let me know what type of ad revenue you're projecting for games of that quality.

In 2011, ND ratings hit an all time low on NBC. Two years later, the network and University extended the TV deal another 10 years. Notre Dame is the brand, not the individual players. People buy BMWs and Mercedes based on the company's reputation, not because they think that Gunther is the best engineer in the business. I am projecting the same ad revenue for Harvard/Yale as the game currently generates. If anything, it will increase because the game will be available to alumni in every market of the world, via the internet. The difference is that the schools will see ALL of the ad revenue, not the ad revenue minus the broadcaster's cut.

 

[dales5050]

You're missing my point. If they truly want to be paid for their services then my point is there are avenues to do that. They don't do that, however; b/c D1 major college football provides something none of those minor professional leagues can come close to: exposure to millions through television rights that college football conferences (& ND) have w/ the networks.

Just what avenue do these kids have besides going to play in college today?

As for the benefit of playing college football, the exposure does not matter. It's not like the NFL watches college games and tracks who is the rising frosh? They wait to evaluate the players when they are ready for the draft.


Honest question here.

The ESPN/SEC deal to my knowledge ends in 2023. That is just 8 years away. Odds are contract talks will start back up around 2020. That is just 5 years away.

Now there are many accounts of Mark Cuban poking at the NFL about their greed. Good reading for sure. What's more interesting is Mark Cuban is a guy who is worth about $3B, knows media inside, is an NBA owner and likes to pick a fight.

Just what would happen if he decided to put just $350M on the table around 2019?

He could start a league with just 8 teams and own all 8 to start. Each team had an operating budget of $8M per year for a guaranteed 5 years. That is just $320M.

The breakdown of $8M per year would be:

$3M player payroll of 85 players or $35,294 per year per player with an active roster of 53 players. The 32 off the roster account for injuries and attrition.
$2M coaching payroll for 10 coaches
$3M operating budget for stadium expenses, travel and support

This is before a penny of revenue is calculated.

Now where do they play? Well beyond the fact that it's all about the TV deal, there are over 100 stadiums in the US that are not home to 'major college football' that either belong to the 'have nots' of college football.

This does not even consider NFL stadiums that are owned by municipalities that would have a hard time turing away extra revenue.

AT&T is owned by the City of Arlington. There is your Texas talent pool.
First Engergy is owned by the City of Cleveland. There goes the mid-west and Ohio.
Qualcomm is owned by the City of San Diego. SoCal says Hi.
EverBank Field is owned by the City of Jacksonville. Sunshine state here we come.
Raymond James is owned by Hillsborough County. Lots of talent in Florida.
Ralph Wilson Stadium is owned by Erie County. Not much of a market but they would be happy to find a use for that stadium when Pegula builds a new one downtown around the same time.
The Superdome is owned by the Louisiana Stadium/Expo District. It's a party in N'awlins.
Soldier Field is owned by the city of Chicago.....


Now who would coach the teams? Well pretty much every school outside of the power 5 have staff salaries that are under $2M so finding 8 staffs to take a pay raise in a guaranteed 5 year contract would not be too difficult to find.

Now who would play on the teams? Well starting in 2018 or so, this new league could hire a team of scouts to canvas the US and simply reach out to high school players or their families. The pitch is simple. He [player], just want to put this out there. If you're interested in talking we're willing to put a guaranteed 3 year contract in front of you for $105K. In addition to that contract, you would be free to sign with any sports agent and get 85% of any endorsement deal you in. The league would be entitled to 15%.

In exchange for this, the league will provide you with food, clothing and housing for free for your entire time in the league. You would get free medical care and you would be able to train 12 months out of the year.


=======
Now say something like this was floated out there. Floated just before the SEC tried to ink a new deal with ESPN. Just what type of havoc would that bring?

So go ahead and think it's the exposure that the big schools that drives the value. It's just a matter of time before someone with enough money decides to take a shot at that billion dollar pie.

 

[dales5050]

In 2011, ND ratings hit an all time low on NBC. Two years later, the network and University extended the TV deal another 10 years. Notre Dame is the brand, not the individual players. People buy BMWs and Mercedes based on the company's reputation, not because they think that Gunther is the best engineer in the business. I am projecting the same ad revenue for Harvard/Yale as the game currently generates. If anything, it will increase because the game will be available to alumni in every market of the world, via the internet. The difference is that the schools will see ALL of the ad revenue, not the ad revenue minus the broadcaster's cut.

Heh. The brand of BWM is based on the performance and quality of the car. If BMW put out the quality of Mazdas for a period of 4-6 years the brand would suffer.

You can keep your line of thinking that somehow schools that play mediocre football will be able to keep the same revenue deals. That's your right. You're wrong but that's your right.

But the bigger issue for you here in my opinion is that you're just looking at this from the narrow spectrum of ND. ND gets players who are OK with the idea of being a student athlete. Schools like Alabama and Ohio State do not.

Do you honestly think a kid like Cardale Jones is going to play for OSU when he could be paid? You're kidding yourself if you think these kids who can barely read or write value an education....especially when the majority of them do not even graduate.

1.6% kids who play college football make it to the NFL. That's 1.6% of kids who get paid.

25% of kids who play college football do not graduate. That's 25% of kids who don't get that degree that so many put value in. Many flunk out and some leave early.

So tell me what the value is for that 20% or so of players who don't make it to the NFL and don't graduate. Please.

Now tell me what the value of the CFB product is when those 20% of players are getting paid to earn their shot at the NFL. The kids who know damn well that even if they get a 'helping hand' along the way, they are never going to enter the workforce and compete for jobs against kids with earned diplomas and the skills that go with it.

Tell me how you sell a kid who knows damn well he's going to go work for the town if the NFL does not happen is going to turn down making money right away when his family has trouble paying the bills.

I would love to hear your sales pitch there.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Just what avenue do these kids have besides going to play in college today?

As for the benefit of playing college football, the exposure does not matter. It's not like the NFL watches college games and tracks who is the rising frosh? They wait to evaluate the players when they are ready for the draft.


Honest question here.

The ESPN/SEC deal to my knowledge ends in 2023. That is just 8 years away. Odds are contract talks will start back up around 2020. That is just 5 years away.

Now there are many accounts of Mark Cuban poking at the NFL about their greed. Good reading for sure. What's more interesting is Mark Cuban is a guy who is worth about $3B, knows media inside, is an NBA owner and likes to pick a fight.

Just what would happen if he decided to put just $350M on the table around 2019?

He could start a league with just 8 teams and own all 8 to start. Each team had an operating budget of $8M per year for a guaranteed 5 years. That is just $320M.

The breakdown of $8M per year would be:

$3M player payroll of 85 players or $35,294 per year per player with an active roster of 53 players. The 32 off the roster account for injuries and attrition.
$2M coaching payroll for 10 coaches
$3M operating budget for stadium expenses, travel and support

This is before a penny of revenue is calculated.

Now where do they play? Well beyond the fact that it's all about the TV deal, there are over 100 stadiums in the US that are not home to 'major college football' that either belong to the 'have nots' of college football.

This does not even consider NFL stadiums that are owned by municipalities that would have a hard time turing away extra revenue.

AT&T is owned by the City of Arlington. There is your Texas talent pool.
First Engergy is owned by the City of Cleveland. There goes the mid-west and Ohio.
Qualcomm is owned by the City of San Diego. SoCal says Hi.
EverBank Field is owned by the City of Jacksonville. Sunshine state here we come.
Raymond James is owned by Hillsborough County. Lots of talent in Florida.
Ralph Wilson Stadium is owned by Erie County. Not much of a market but they would be happy to find a use for that stadium when Pegula builds a new one downtown around the same time.
The Superdome is owned by the Louisiana Stadium/Expo District. It's a party in N'awlins.
Soldier Field is owned by the city of Chicago.....


Now who would coach the teams? Well pretty much every school outside of the power 5 have staff salaries that are under $2M so finding 8 staffs to take a pay raise in a guaranteed 5 year contract would not be too difficult to find.

Now who would play on the teams? Well starting in 2018 or so, this new league could hire a team of scouts to canvas the US and simply reach out to high school players or their families. The pitch is simple. He [player], just want to put this out there. If you're interested in talking we're willing to put a guaranteed 3 year contract in front of you for $105K. In addition to that contract, you would be free to sign with any sports agent and get 85% of any endorsement deal you in. The league would be entitled to 15%.

In exchange for this, the league will provide you with food, clothing and housing for free for your entire time in the league. You would get free medical care and you would be able to train 12 months out of the year.


=======
Now say something like this was floated out there. Floated just before the SEC tried to ink a new deal with ESPN. Just what type of havoc would that bring?

So go ahead and think it's the exposure that the big schools that drives the value. It's just a matter of time before someone with enough money decides to take a shot at that billion dollar pie.

There's no guns to the heads of these kids to go to college. As I've said before, they can go north to Canada or play in the Arena leagues if it's money they truly need. If it's not the exposure, then there's something else driving them to college athletics so please enlighten me b/c you said yourself the NFL will find the talent regardless (which I agree w/ you BTW). These kids are getting housing mostly in athletes only dorms (some better than where their family lives), they are getting clothing (have you ever priced the Nike & UA gear that these kids wear?), they get medical (when I blew out my knee in college playing pick up ball guess who didn't pay my medical bills?), they get food (training tables that make a casino buffett look like a soup kitchen), they get books & tuition and they get the greatest platform in America to show their wares to any interested parties. Would you rather be develeoped by Nick Saban & Jim Harbaugh or some no name in a minor league somewhere that nobody has heard of? Most of these kids should qualify for Pell Grants so what do they truly need more spending money for? Is the money the universities rake in obscene vs what the players get in return? Yes. Am I fan of state universities or the NCAA? Hell, no. Do some of the elite players deserve some kind of future revenue stream for the revenue they generate? Sure, put it in a 401K or something that can't be touched until their eligibility is exhausted. Paying them a stipend is not the answer...it's an entitlement that would quickly be abused and litigated. Title IX makes it tough to pay a football or bball player who generate revenue if it doesn't also pay the womens field hockey player or mens baseball player. Meanwhile, these poor kids somehow find the resources to purchase multiple tattoos, $400 headphones from the likes of Beats by Dre, smart phones w/ data plans, etc. Maybe they donated plasma twice a week at $25 a pop...if so, there's Nothing wrong w/ that but it's hard to shed a tear over these kids "going to bed hungry" when we see them tatted up & listening to their pre-game tunes w/ headphones that cost more than most people's monthly car note. I'll admit the reveneue the schools rake in is obscene but I will not admit that these kids are slaves to the grind of intercollegiate athletics.

 

[GowerND11]

There's no guns to the heads of these kids to go to college. As I've said before, they can go north to Canada or play in the Arena leagues if it's money they truly need. If it's not the exposure, then there's something else driving them to college athletics so please enlighten me b/c you said yourself the NFL will find the talent regardless (which I agree w/ you BTW). These kids are getting housing mostly in athletes only dorms (some better than where their family lives), they are getting clothing (have you ever priced the Nike & UA gear that these kids wear?), they get medical (when I blew out my knee in college playing pick up ball guess who didn't pay my medical bills?), they get food (training tables that make a casino buffett look like a soup kitchen), they get books & tuition and they get the greatest platform in America to show their wares to any interested parties. Would you rather be develeoped by Nick Saban & Jim Harbaugh or some no name in a minor league somewhere that nobody has heard of? Most of these kids should qualify for Pell Grants so what do they truly need more spending money for? Is the money the universities rake in obscene vs what the players get in return? Yes. Am I fan of state universities or the NCAA? Hell, no. Do some of the elite players deserve some kind of future revenue stream for the revenue they generate? Sure, put it in a 401K or something that can't be touched until their eligibility is exhausted. Paying them a stipend is not the answer...it's an entitlement that would quickly be abused and litigated. Title IX makes it tough to pay a football or bball player who generate revenue if it doesn't also pay the womens field hockey player or mens baseball player. Meanwhile, these poor kids somehow find the resources to purchase multiple tattoos, $400 headphones from the likes of Beats by Dre, smart phones w/ data plans, etc. Maybe they donated plasma twice a week at $25 a pop...if so, there's Nothing wrong w/ that but it's hard to shed a tear over these kids "going to bed hungry" when we see them tatted up & listening to their pre-game tunes w/ headphones that cost more than most people's monthly car note. I'll admit the reveneue the schools rake in is obscene but I will not admit that these kids are slaves to the grind of intercollegiate athletics.

I never understand the argument of being hungry when they are walking into the locker room with the Beats attached to the smartphone....

 

[dales5050]

There's no guns to the heads of these kids to go to college. As I've said before, they can go north to Canada or play in the Arena leagues if it's money they truly need. If it's not the exposure, then there's something else driving them to college athletics so please enlighten me b/c you said yourself the NFL will find the talent regardless (which I agree w/ you BTW).

You are correct that these kids do not have a gun to their head. You're also correct that they could go to play in Canada or the Arenal leagues. Those are the options that exist today.

What you don't seem to grasp is the billions and billions at play for TV contracts. Right now, ESPN can only negotiate with groups that have a product. Right now, the best product is the power 5 conferences and that's because they have the best players.

Do you really think everyone else with money is going to stand on the sidelines and watch colleges bring in these kinds of revenues forever? Do you really think someone or a group of people with the financial resources are not going to sit back and ask themselves....how much would it cost to siphon off 50% of the top 2,000 players in CFB?

To put some historical perspective on it, there was a time when NFL owners thought they were untouchable. They thought they 'owned' the rights to professional football in the US. They scoffed at the idea of teams in Buffalo, Boston, Dallas and Denver putting a dent in 'their league'....

10 years later the AFL merged with the NFL.

These kids are getting housing mostly in athletes only dorms (some better than where their family lives), they are getting clothing (have you ever priced the Nike & UA gear that these kids wear?), they get medical (when I blew out my knee in college playing pick up ball guess who didn't pay my medical bills?), they get food (training tables that make a casino buffett look like a soup kitchen), they get books & tuition and they get the greatest platform in America to show their wares to any interested parties.

They get housed in dorms where they have to follow the rules that don't make sense to them. They get books and tuition for classes they don't want to go to. They get to go to parties but have to watch every single step out of fear of losing their eligibility.

Like many here, you really are not looking at this from the perspective of the typical college football player.

Everything you mention that is being provided to them could be provided on an equal or grater value by a development league. It's just a matter of someone with enough money crunching the numbers and seeing that there is a lot of money to be made if you don't have to feed the fat cats at the university.

Would you rather be develeoped by Nick Saban & Jim Harbaugh or some no name in a minor league somewhere that nobody has heard of?

Saban and Harbaugh are just two of the coaches. Speaking of Harbaugh, I wonder how the kids who signed with him at Stanford felt about him leaving for the NFL. They signed up to be developed by him but then were told tough sh*t about transferring if they wanted to. I wonder what the kids at LSU felt when Saban bounced to the NFL.

Most of these kids should qualify for Pell Grants so what do they truly need more spending money for? Is the money the universities rake in obscene vs what the players get in return? Yes. Am I fan of state universities or the NCAA? Hell, no.

Many of these kids do not give a crap about Pell Grants. Many of these kids don't give a crap about getting a degree.

Do you think these kids have some sort of misguided notion that even though they had to struggle to even get eligible they are somehow going to excel in college? They don't.

But are you serious in asking what they need spending money for? Jesus Christ you sound like a plantation owner. I feed the slaves, I house the slaves, I give them something to do each day...just what do they need to learn how to read or write for? Why do they need to be paid for their labor.

Title IX makes it tough to pay a football or bball player who generate revenue if it doesn't also pay the womens field hockey player or mens baseball player. Meanwhile, these poor kids somehow find the resources to purchase multiple tattoos, $400 headphones from the likes of Beats by Dre, smart phones w/ data plans, etc. Maybe they donated plasma twice a week at $25 a pop...if so, there's Nothing wrong w/ that but it's hard to shed a tear over these kids "going to bed hungry" when we see them tatted up & listening to their pre-game tunes w/ headphones that cost more than most people's monthly car note. I'll admit the reveneue the schools rake in is obscene but I will not admit that these kids are slaves to the grind of intercollegiate athletics.

Title IX applies to college athletics. College athletics is corrupt. Remove the aspect of college from the picture and Title IX goes away.

 

[dales5050]

I never understand the argument of being hungry when they are walking into the locker room with the Beats attached to the smartphone....

Yes, because the typical college kid in the US is known for financial responsibility. It's unheard of for kids to skip a meal so they could have more money to go to the bar with.

These entitled little boys with their desire to have something nice like headphones and smartphones like the majority of kids on the campus.

They should just be happy with what they get and stop being so uppity. They should know their place dammit.

They are there for my viewing pleasure each Saturday. I don't care if they are unhappy. I like rooting for my team and #25 better understand his place in this world. It's to put the rock in the endzone dammit.

Don't they know how good they got it? They should be happy with what they got. Uppity little boys.

 

[GowerND11]

You are correct that these kids do not have a gun to their head. You're also correct that they could go to play in Canada or the Arenal leagues. Those are the options that exist today.

What you don't seem to grasp is the billions and billions at play for TV contracts. Right now, ESPN can only negotiate with groups that have a product. Right now, the best product is the power 5 conferences and that's because they have the best players.

Do you really think everyone else with money is going to stand on the sidelines and watch colleges bring in these kinds of revenues forever? Do you really think someone or a group of people with the financial resources are not going to sit back and ask themselves....how much would it cost to siphon off 50% of the top 2,000 players in CFB?

To put some historical perspective on it, there was a time when NFL owners thought they were untouchable. They thought they 'owned' the rights to professional football in the US. They scoffed at the idea of teams in Buffalo, Boston, Dallas and Denver putting a dent in 'their league'....

10 years later the AFL merged with the NFL.

Good let a league start up and do that. I'd be happy to see these guys who don't care about their education and/or going to class leave collegiate athletics

They get housed in dorms where they have to follow the rules that don't make sense to them. They get books and tuition for classes they don't want to go to. They get to go to parties but have to watch every single step out of fear of losing their eligibility.

Like many here, you really are not looking at this from the perspective of the typical college football player.

Spare me the sob story of these guys not following rules. In life you have choices. If you choose to go to college it is understood there are rules to follow. These aren't hidden rules either. You are told right away, and it's in your student handbook, what the do's and don't's are while attending that university. Maybe the problem isn't the rules these guys have to follow. Maybe it's the guys (football players) who are the problem.

Appeasement doesn't work. It leads to escalation... Ask Neville Chamberlain.

Everything you mention that is being provided to them could be provided on an equal or grater value by a development league. It's just a matter of someone with enough money crunching the numbers and seeing that there is a lot of money to be made if you don't have to feed the fat cats at the university.





Saban and Harbaugh are just two of the coaches. Speaking of Harbaugh, I wonder how the kids who signed with him at Stanford felt about him leaving for the NFL. They signed up to be developed by him but then were told tough sh*t about transferring if they wanted to. I wonder what the kids at LSU felt when Saban bounced to the NFL.

Again, let a new developmental league develop. Either that or the NCAA needs to grow a pair and maintain amateur status.

Many of these kids do not give a crap about Pell Grants. Many of these kids don't give a crap about getting a degree.

Do you think these kids have some sort of misguided notion that even though they had to struggle to even get eligible they are somehow going to excel in college? They don't.

But are you serious in asking what they need spending money for? Jesus Christ you sound like a plantation owner. I feed the slaves, I house the slaves, I give them something to do each day...just what do they need to learn how to read or write for? Why do they need to be paid for their labor.



Title IX applies to college athletics. College athletics is corrupt. Remove the aspect of college from the picture and Title IX goes away.

A plantation owner? Really? If a student decides to attend college, but fears he/she will not have enough money, but come from a poor household, why is it so farfetched that they should apply for a Pell Grant so they "don't go to bed hungry." (Which is BS anyways) They CHOOSE to play a sport in college, in EXCHANGE for FREE housing, FREE food, FREE clothing, a FREE education, and FREE exposure to the nation and NFL scouts. Pretty sweet deal to me. Doesn't sound like slavery.

 

[GowerND11]

Yes, because the typical college kid in the US is known for financial responsibility. It's unheard of for kids to skip a meal so they could have more money to go to the bar with.

These entitled little boys with their desire to have something nice like headphones and smartphones like the majority of kids on the campus.

They should just be happy with what they get and stop being so uppity. They should know their place dammit.

They are there for my viewing pleasure each Saturday. I don't care if they are unhappy. I like rooting for my team and #25 better understand his place in this world. It's to put the rock in the endzone dammit.

Don't they know how good they got it? They should be happy with what they got. Uppity little boys.

Cost-benefit: Eat orrrrrrrrr buy Beats. He made his choice. Just like we all make choices everyday with our finances.

We (speaking in generalities) were all in college once. We've all been there. But I never complained publicly that I was going to bed hungry because my FREE ride to an education wasn't enough. (even though it does cover meals)

 

[dales5050]

Good let a league start up and do that. I'd be happy to see these guys who don't care about their education and/or going to class leave collegiate athletics

So how much D3 Football do you watch? How much Ivy League football do you check out during the season?

Spare me the sob story of these guys not following rules. In life you have choices. If you choose to go to college it is understood there are rules to follow. These aren't hidden rules either. You are told right away, and it's in your student handbook, what the do's and don't's are while attending that university. Maybe the problem isn't the rules these guys have to follow. Maybe it's the guys (football players) who are the problem.

WOW. This is almost comical.

Again, let a new developmental league develop. Either that or the NCAA needs to grow a pair and maintain amateur status.

I am fine with the NCAA growing a pair and getting strict about amateur status and getting serious about the student athlete. Schools like Notre Dame would thrive.

But while this conversation is on a ND board, it's about the entire NCAA.

A plantation owner? Really? If a student decides to attend college, but fears he/she will not have enough money, but come from a poor household, why is it so farfetched that they should apply for a Pell Grant so they "don't go to bed hungry." (Which is BS anyways) They CHOOSE to play a sport in college, in EXCHANGE for FREE housing, FREE food, FREE clothing, a FREE education, and FREE exposure to the nation and NFL scouts. Pretty sweet deal to me. Doesn't sound like slavery.

I have never said the 'go to bed hungry' argument is valid.

But yes. People like you come off as someone without perspective. I used a plantation owner but could have used a male talking about the right for women to vote or a trust fund kid who has never worked a day in their life talking about people working harder. I could have used several examples of someone speaking without grasping the perspective of the person they are talking about.

So yes, that is how people like you sound like to me when you talk about FREE food, FREE clothing and FREE education when talking about kids who come from crushing poverty, barely able to read or write at a high school level and know that if they don't make it to the NFL they are going to be working a manual labor job back home.

Seriously, you should put on a top hat and a monocle when typing.

 

[GowerND11]

So how much D3 Football do you watch? How much Ivy League football do you check out during the season?

I actually do try to keep up with some local D3 teams around my area. A game or two is even broadcast on Saturdays (sometimes Sunday mornings) featuring local teams. I also went to a D2 school so I follow them, as well as the entire PSAC during the season.

WOW. This is almost comical.

It's comical to think that someone should follow the rules set forth for them? K

I am fine with the NCAA growing a pair and getting strict about amateur status and getting serious about the student athlete. Schools like Notre Dame would thrive.

But while this conversation is on a ND board, it's about the entire NCAA.

It is about the NCAA yes. That's my point. All these teams belong to the NCAA so they should play by the rules. But, then again, according to you, following the rules is comical.

I have never said the 'go to bed hungry' argument is valid.

But yes. People like you come off as someone without perspective. I used a plantation owner but could have used a male talking about the right for women to vote or a trust fund kid who has never worked a day in their life talking about people working harder. I could have used several examples of someone speaking without grasping the perspective of the person they are talking about.

So yes, that is how people like you sound like to me when you talk about FREE food, FREE clothing and FREE education when talking about kids who come from crushing poverty, barely able to read or write at a high school level and know that if they don't make it to the NFL they are going to be working a manual labor job back home.

Seriously, you should put on a top hat and a monocle when typing.

I was never poor, but by no means did we have everything. My parents sacrificed a lot for me, but unfortunately they did not have the ability to save up for me to go to college. Never the less I went. I made do with the loans and grants I applied for and received. I led the poor college life. It's tough yes, but it's doable. Again these young adults have a choice. Play by the rules or don't. If they are worried about their families I totally get wanting to make it into the NBA or NFL to provide, but at the end of the day they are privileged to be attend school for free while working towards obtaining that dream.

I know it is tough in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, and that education is lacking. I just moved on from working for Job Corps where I would routinely have 20, 21, 22, 23 year old adults who could not read, write, or do basic math. That is a serious problem. But that isn't on college athletics to fix.

Also, I'll make sure to purchase that monocle and top hat as soon as I'm done paying off my student loans.

 

[dales5050]

I actually do try to keep up with some local D3 teams around my area. A game or two is even broadcast on Saturdays (sometimes Sunday mornings) featuring local teams. I also went to a D2 school so I follow them, as well as the entire PSAC during the season.

Let me google the TV deals ESPN has made with those schools

It's comical to think that someone should follow the rules set forth for them? K

I am not talking about breaking the rules. That's the game today and it should be played according to the rules.

What I am talking about is the arrogance that you're showing in thinking the game is fair and that it's not going to change.

It is about the NCAA yes. That's my point. All these teams belong to the NCAA so they should play by the rules. But, then again, according to you, following the rules is comical.

The teams belong to the NCAA..not the players. Without the players you don't have much. That's the part that you don't seem to grasp and why I find your view amusing.

I was never poor, but by no means did we have everything. My parents sacrificed a lot for me, but unfortunately they did not have the ability to save up for me to go to college. Never the less I went. I made do with the loans and grants I applied for and received. I led the poor college life. It's tough yes, but it's doable. Again these young adults have a choice. Play by the rules or don't. If they are worried about their families I totally get wanting to make it into the NBA or NFL to provide, but at the end of the day they are privileged to be attend school for free while working towards obtaining that dream.

That is the choice today. I agree.

What I am talking about is this forced choice of play by the rules or don't is not really popular with many of the kids who are being forced to make the choice.

It's just a matter of time in my opinion that someone comes along and says...hey, here is a different option. When that does happen, the NCAA is going to be a shell of itself.

I know it is tough in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, and that education is lacking. I just moved on from working for Job Corps where I would routinely have 20, 21, 22, 23 year old adults who could not read, write, or do basic math. That is a serious problem. But that isn't on college athletics to fix.

I think this goes back to college athletics and the student athlete. If you are suggesting that it's not the position of college athletics to fix these kids...then are you then in favor of college athletics not allowing these kids to 'pretend' to be student athletes?

I would be 100% in favor of that but that would end with a large percentage of talent leaving the ranks of power 5 schools.

What's worse, saying it's not the responsibility of the NCAA or pretending to try just so you can get something in return?

Also, I'll make sure to purchase that monocle and top hat as soon as I'm done paying off my student loans.

This reads to be as a bit of jealousy and envy honestly. I think that's the case for many out there.

You have people who never even came close to the ability of these players but are looking at student debt and think..those players have it better than me, so they should be happy.

Am I wrong in this inference?

 

[GowerND11]

Let me google the TV deals ESPN has made with those schools

I am a football fan. I love Notre Dame first and foremost, but overall I am a fan of the game. That's why I follow D2 and D3 in the manner I do. I also love going to high school games because of this. Sure they don't have the TV deals. Sure they don't get the exposure. Sure they are not the most talented. But god damn do they give it everything.

I am not talking about breaking the rules. That's the game today and it should be played according to the rules.

What I am talking about is the arrogance that you're showing in thinking the game is fair and that it's not going to change.

My belief is if there wants to be a minor league system or some other developmental league then that should happen. That way the college athletics remain the same, while these players who desire getting paid and not getting educated while playing can do so in those leagues.

The teams belong to the NCAA..not the players. Without the players you don't have much. That's the part that you don't seem to grasp and why I find your view amusing.

There will always be players. Even if those league develop and take the upper echelon talent, there will still be players. IMO it is about student-athletes (which is what the NCAA claims) , therefore college athletics should be about getting an education, which at Notre Dame is about building the mind, body, and spirit.

That is the choice today. I agree.

What I am talking about is this forced choice of play by the rules or don't is not really popular with many of the kids who are being forced to make the choice.

It's just a matter of time in my opinion that someone comes along and says...hey, here is a different option. When that does happen, the NCAA is going to be a shell of itself.

It isn't popular, I agree. But that doesn't mean it can't work. See above reasoning.

I think this goes back to college athletics and the student athlete. If you are suggesting that it's not the position of college athletics to fix these kids...then are you then in favor of college athletics not allowing these kids to 'pretend' to be student athletes?

I would be 100% in favor of that but that would end with a large percentage of talent leaving the ranks of power 5 schools.

What's worse, saying it's not the responsibility of the NCAA or pretending to try just so you can get something in return?

Yes I believe it is about., as stated above, the students' educations. Again, the talent leaving would be a major problem no denying that, but the result, IMO, would be a better NCAA since it would be what it is supposed to be, students participating in athletics while getting a quality (usually) education.

This reads to be as a bit of jealousy and envy honestly. I think that's the case for many out there.

You have people who never even came close to the ability of these players but are looking at student debt and think..those players have it better than me, so they should be happy.

Am I wrong in this inference?

Am I jealous of people who can do things better than me? Absolutely. We are lying to our selves if we deny this. However, I also believe that these kids don't realize how good they do have it and that they should cherish the opportunity they have to make a living off their skills. (see Maurice Clarrett) He made some dumb choices which cost him his education (though that could have never been something he wanted to begin with), his career, and his freedom for a few years.

All I would like to see is the NCAA uphold amateurism like they claim they do/will. If that means some 5 and 4 star players don't go to college, well that's a net plus IMO if there is a way for them to attempt to reach their goal (NFL) through other viable avenues.

 

[dales5050]

My belief is if there wants to be a minor league system or some other developmental league then that should happen. That way the college athletics remain the same, while these players who desire getting paid and not getting educated while playing can do so in those leagues.

I agree with this as well. All I am trying to say is if, or better yet when, this happens the revenue schools see will not be close to what they are today.

There will always be players. Even if those league develop and take the upper echelon talent, there will still be players. IMO it is about student-athletes (which is what the NCAA claims) , therefore college athletics should be about getting an education, which at Notre Dame is about building the mind, body, and spirit.

There will be players. Just like there are players at UB or Toledo. Does not mean that they are going to get the same amount of viewers as Alabama and LSU. Does not mean ESPN is going to pay the same amount for a different quality product.

Yes I believe it is about., as stated above, the students' educations. Again, the talent leaving would be a major problem no denying that, but the result, IMO, would be a better NCAA since it would be what it is supposed to be, students participating in athletics while getting a quality (usually) education.

It would be more honest. Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of ND because of how they view education not in spite of it. I am a fan of honest amateur sports.

The point I am trying to make is true amateur sports are not worth what people are paying for college football today.

Am I jealous of people who can do things better than me? Absolutely. We are lying to our selves if we deny this. However, I also believe that these kids don't realize how good they do have it and that they should cherish the opportunity they have to make a living off their skills. (see Maurice Clarrett) He made some dumb choices which cost him his education (though that could have never been something he wanted to begin with), his career, and his freedom for a few years.

How good does a kid who can hardly read or write but takes Swahili at UNC to remain eligible really have it? What value does a kid who has to take remedial courses for a couple of years with no viable path to a diploma get from going to college?

All I would like to see is the NCAA uphold amateurism like they claim they do/will. If that means some 5 and 4 star players don't go to college, well that's a net plus IMO if there is a way for them to attempt to reach their goal (NFL) through other viable avenues.

Again, we agree on this. All I am saying is ESPN is not going to pay Billions to the SEC when the teams are filled with 3 star players. Especially if those 4 and 5 star players are also playing on Saturday.

 

[GowerND11]

How good does a kid who can hardly read or write but takes Swahili at UNC to remain eligible really have it? What value does a kid who has to take remedial courses for a couple of years with no viable path to a diploma get from going to college?



Again, we agree on this. All I am saying is ESPN is not going to pay Billions to the SEC when the teams are filled with 3 star players. Especially if those 4 and 5 star players are also playing on Saturday.

To the first part quoted, obviously yes he might not have it good. But then you have, and this is an extreme, Floyd Merewether with more money than he can imagine and yet he can't (allegedly) read and right. I'd say he is doing alright for himself. What I was saying is we, as fans, generally are always a bit envious of the skills these guys have. That doesn't mean they have it all though. Again that is a problem with our education system that should be corrected, but we shouldn't hold our breath.

And yes I agree it may, probably, will result in less TV time, but it would be better for college athletics for the mission they state. But with TV and streaming evolving the way they are, college games could/would still find their way on the TV.

 

[kmoose]

Heh. The brand of BWM is based on the performance and quality of the car. If BMW put out the quality of Mazdas for a period of 4-6 years the brand would suffer.

Notre Dame (BMW) has been putting out mediocre (Mazda) product for years, and is currently experiencing record revenues. According to your theory, their revenues should be declining, yet they are setting records.

You can keep your line of thinking that somehow schools that play mediocre football will be able to keep the same revenue deals. That's your right. You're wrong but that's your right.

I'm not sure what you think you have been reading, but I am clearly saying that I think that revenue streams are going to change. So where do you get that I think that schools will get to keep the same deals?

Do you honestly think a kid like Cardale Jones is going to play for OSU when he could be paid? You're kidding yourself if you think these kids who can barely read or write value an education....especially when the majority of them do not even graduate.

Cardale Jones was a consensus first day NFL draft pick, if he declared for the upcoming draft. What's he doing next year, again?

But the bigger issue for you here in my opinion is that you're just looking at this from the narrow spectrum of ND. ND gets players who are OK with the idea of being a student athlete. Schools like Alabama and Ohio State do not.

Do you honestly think a kid like Cardale Jones is going to play for OSU when he could be paid? You're kidding yourself if you think these kids who can barely read or write value an education....especially when the majority of them do not even graduate.

1.6% kids who play college football make it to the NFL. That's 1.6% of kids who get paid.

25% of kids who play college football do not graduate. That's 25% of kids who don't get that degree that so many put value in. Many flunk out and some leave early.

So tell me what the value is for that 20% or so of players who don't make it to the NFL and don't graduate. Please.

Now tell me what the value of the CFB product is when those 20% of players are getting paid to earn their shot at the NFL. The kids who know damn well that even if they get a 'helping hand' along the way, they are never going to enter the workforce and compete for jobs against kids with earned diplomas and the skills that go with it.

Tell me how you sell a kid who knows damn well he's going to go work for the town if the NFL does not happen is going to turn down making money right away when his family has trouble paying the bills.

I would love to hear your sales pitch there.

This all goes back to the idea that no one is entitled to a career in football. Why should I concern myself about the value of the college experience to a guy who isn't going to put any effort into capitalizing on the opportunities afforded him?

 

[dales5050]

Notre Dame (BMW) has been putting out mediocre (Mazda) product for years, and is currently experiencing record revenues. According to your theory, their revenues should be declining, yet they are setting records.

Sorry but even in the 3-9 season you were watching Jimmy Clausen for the first time.

Talk to me when the best QB is a Sharpley or Reese, the best RB is a Junior Jabbie and your best DE is John Ryan. Run that quality of players for a few years in a row and talk to me then about ratings.

Beyond that, as I have mentioned before, you're just looking at this from a ND perspective.

I'm not sure what you think you have been reading, but I am clearly saying that I think that revenue streams are going to change. So where do you get that I think that schools will get to keep the same deals?.

You're talking about distribution changing. I am talking about the product changing. You seem to think that people are going to want to pay for a lessor product. Homerism only goes so far

Cardale Jones was a consensus first day NFL draft pick, if he declared for the upcoming draft. What's he doing next year, again?

Jimmy Clausen was supposed to be a first rounder.

My point was not about what Cardale Jones would do after he arrived, played and won a NC at Ohio State. My comment was about what Cardale Jones would have done as an 18 year old HS senior.

If Notre Dame makes the man then you must accept that college changes a person. So therefor posting what someone who do after they have spent time in college has nothing to do with what they would while in High School.

This all goes back to the idea that no one is entitled to a career in football. Why should I concern myself about the value of the college experience to a guy who isn't going to put any effort into capitalizing on the opportunities afforded him?

You don't have to concern yourself and it's clear you're not even trying to look at the perspective of the player. But that does not change their perspective.

Like I said to GowerND11, I will be a fan and watch ND regardless of the quality of the players. But if top tier players started to leave the college game I would tune into that over watching SEC games because for everything outside of ND...it's about the quality of the game.

Nobody is entitled to a career in playing football but you're also not entitle to decide how an 18 year old values things.

 

[MNIrishman]

Notre Dame (BMW) has been putting out mediocre (Mazda) product for years, and is currently experiencing record revenues. According to your theory, their revenues should be declining, yet they are setting records.



I'm not sure what you think you have been reading, but I am clearly saying that I think that revenue streams are going to change. So where do you get that I think that schools will get to keep the same deals?



Cardale Jones was a consensus first day NFL draft pick, if he declared for the upcoming draft. What's he doing next year, again?



This all goes back to the idea that no one is entitled to a career in football. Why should I concern myself about the value of the college experience to a guy who isn't going to put any effort into capitalizing on the opportunities afforded him?

The bolded is true of Michigan as well. No one stops watching when a player graduates. No one starts watching because you recruited the latest four star. What matters is that ND is competitive. If they were competitive on a national level with 2 star athletes, people would still watch them. I find your (dale's) argument that players=eyeballs utterly uncompelling.

 

[GowerND11]

The bolded is true of Michigan as well. No one stops watching when a player graduates. No one starts watching because you recruited the latest four star. What matters is that ND is competitive. If they were competitive on a national level with 2 star athletes, people would still watch them. I find your (dale's) argument that players=eyeballs utterly uncompelling.

Exactly. It may increase viewership from outside the fanbase, especially during a Heisman run, but it still doesn't make the team with a consistent concrete fan base jump in viewership and only for that short while.

 

[dales5050]

The bolded is true of Michigan as well. No one stops watching when a player graduates. No one starts watching because you recruited the latest four star. What matters is that ND is competitive. If they were competitive on a national level with 2 star athletes, people would still watch them. I find your (dale's) argument that players=eyeballs utterly uncompelling.

To each their own. If you really think ND is going to get the same number of people watching them if the team is filled with '2 star' quality players playing against other 2 star quality players....good for you guy. Army v. Navy used to play for the NC on the line.

It's nice to know that there is a segment of the ND fan base that is so dialed into the program that do not concern themselves with reality.

 

[kmoose]

To each their own. If you really think ND is going to get the same number of people watching them if the team is filled with '2 star' quality players playing against other 2 star quality players....good for you guy. Army v. Navy used to play for the NC on the line.

It's nice to know that there is a segment of the ND fan base that is so dialed into the program that do not concern themselves with reality.

You are the one that seems to have difficulty grasping the reality. You seem to live in some kind of fantasy land where the producers of products are compensated equally to the ownership that they work for. The reality is that the world doesn't work that way. Maybe in some specialized sales fields a super salesman might earn close to the same money as his manager(s) and owner(s), but that would be an anomaly.

You also seem to think that losing eyeballs automatically means that Universities lose money. That's not necessarily the case. If the delivery of television changes to the point that schools can start putting on their own broadcast, then the school will receive 100% of the advertising dollars. Those dollars might drop some, but the University might still be better off financially, depending on their cut of advertising revenues previously.

 

[MNIrishman]

To each their own. If you really think ND is going to get the same number of people watching them if the team is filled with '2 star' quality players playing against other 2 star quality players....good for you guy. Army v. Navy used to play for the NC on the line.

It's nice to know that there is a segment of the ND fan base that is so dialed into the program that do not concern themselves with reality.

If average player quality is the metric for value, why are Notre Dame and Penn State two of the top five most valuable teams, when USC, Alabama, and Florida State are recruiting circles around us?

 

[MNIrishman]

You are the one that seems to have difficulty grasping the reality. You seem to live in some kind of fantasy land where the producers of products are compensated equally to the ownership that they work for. The reality is that the world doesn't work that way. Maybe in some specialized sales fields a super salesman might earn close to the same money as his manager(s) and owner(s), but that would be an anomaly.

You also seem to think that losing eyeballs automatically means that Universities lose money. That's not necessarily the case. If the delivery of television changes to the point that schools can start putting on their own broadcast, then the school will receive 100% of the advertising dollars. Those dollars might drop some, but the University might still be better off financially, depending on their cut of advertising revenues previously.

Bingo. Google made $66B last year, but the average Googler only made 128k. If things were fair, Google employees would be making 10x that. Where's the outrage? Where's the call to right the wrong?

 

[pkt77242]

Just what avenue do these kids have besides going to play in college today?

As for the benefit of playing college football, the exposure does not matter. It's not like the NFL watches college games and tracks who is the rising frosh? They wait to evaluate the players when they are ready for the draft.

Um, what? How do you think that they evaluate the players? They watch the game tapes. That is exposure. Exposure does matter, and to say otherwise is crazy talk.

 

[MNIrishman]

Um, what? How do you think that they evaluate the players? They watch the game tapes. That is exposure. Exposure does matter, and to say otherwise is crazy talk.

There's also the exposure to the thousands of other employers in the world that the regular students don't get. That's pretty damn valuable. (Ben Turk has a pretty nice financial career right now. Probably helped that his name was broadcast nationwide every Saturday).

 

[stlnd01]

To each their own. If you really think ND is going to get the same number of people watching them if the team is filled with '2 star' quality players playing against other 2 star quality players....good for you guy. Army v. Navy used to play for the NC on the line.

It's nice to know that there is a segment of the ND fan base that is so dialed into the program that do not concern themselves with reality.

Does anyone watch minor league baseball? Or D League basketball? Because that's what "college football" divorced from "college" would be.
The product on the field will never be as good as the NFL, obviously. So if watching the best possible football is all you care about, you watch on Sundays. The product that ESPN, etc., is selling is college football, with rivalries and bands and fans who care way more than is rational. An essential part of that is the fact that these teams are part of universities. Separate that out and you really have no product that anyone will care about.
Personally I think the way to save college football (if it needs saving) is to make sure college stays a part of it.

 

[dales5050]

Um, what? How do you think that they evaluate the players? They watch the game tapes. That is exposure. Exposure does matter, and to say otherwise is crazy talk.

The term exposure was in regard to TV coverage. Notice how I said they evaluate the players when they are ready for the draft? That means watching game tapes.

What I was mocking was the stupid idea that that the market share for a particular game had any impact on the ability of the NFL to evaluate a player.

 

[dales5050]

If average player quality is the metric for value, why are Notre Dame and Penn State two of the top five most valuable teams, when USC, Alabama, and Florida State are recruiting circles around us?

You fail to add the fact that in my argument, there is another league. You and others keep talking about CFB as it is today and in a vacuum. Again, I am talking about a future probable reality.

 

[dales5050]

Does anyone watch minor league baseball? Or D League basketball? Because that's what "college football" divorced from "college" would be.
The product on the field will never be as good as the NFL, obviously. So if watching the best possible football is all you care about, you watch on Sundays. The product that ESPN, etc., is selling is college football, with rivalries and bands and fans who care way more than is rational. An essential part of that is the fact that these teams are part of universities. Separate that out and you really have no product that anyone will care about.
Personally I think the way to save college football (if it needs saving) is to make sure college stays a part of it.

First off, saying the product would be like D League is not accurate and rather stupid. My position is the BEST players would leave the college ranks and those are not in the D league.

As for how football is different?

Schedule. Football is the only sport that plays a very limited number of games. MBL plays 162 games. NBA and NHL play 82. But the NFL only plays 16 in the regular season.

Preference. Football is the most popular sport and that's by a wide margin.