NCAA football, 2013-14

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've also gotten soured on NCAA because there is so little competitive balance it really makes it uninteresting. The pro sports use a draft system, force revenue sharing and etc that make it very hard for teams to accumulate massive and unbeatable competitive advantages. There's no erasing the fact that schools like Maryland will never make the money, never get the coaches etc that are needed to win. Whereas in pro sports with drafts instead of free for all recruiting while the best teams can accumulate advantages in free agents (limited in some degree in some pro leagues by salary caps) there is a lot more competitive balance. This means in the NFL or MLB there are a lot more "interesting games" in a given season. In college sports a big time school might only face viable opponents that have any expected chance of beating them like 30% of the time. Sometimes less than that, as many major teams in the last few years have made it until bowl season without playing a serious opponent.

That was part of the charm of college football for me at one point, because it created situations where massively advantaged teams could get beat in shocker upsets. But that actually is less exciting when you look at it from the other side, that usually teams are playing vastly inferior competition such that it's shocking when a certain team doesn't win 9-10 games a year.

[MadImmortalMan]

Yeah but the pros have given up the ability to have lasting dynasties like they did before. It's too hard for them to keep their stars, and players are no longer associated with a team for their whole careers. It makes being a fan less fun when the same pitcher you rooted for last year is now taking the mound against you. If Babe Ruth were playing today, he'd have been passed around to six different teams in free agency by now. You really lose something there.

[Valmy]

Yeah but the pros have given up the ability to have lasting dynasties like they did before. It's too hard for them to keep their stars, and players are no longer associated with a team for their whole careers. It makes being a fan less fun when the same pitcher you rooted for last year is now taking the mound against you. If Babe Ruth were playing today, he'd have been passed around to six different teams in free agency by now. You really lose something there.

This century has seemed kinder to this than the end of the last one.  Teams seem to be building more through the draft these days and holding on to their players...I mean not always but alot more than they used to.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think that's true in baseball because a lot of teams had basically destroyed their competitive ability by giving up all their drafted players in high dollar trades in which they'd give away half a bullpen of pitchers and such for one 35 year old All Star slugger. The Yankees in particular are a lot more farm oriented these days I think because years of throwing away their only prospects in ill advised trades and filling in the gaps with massive free agent contracts proved to give them very little in return (the 96/98/99/00 teams were heavy with drafted talent, and then all the huge free agents they signed got them very little until 2009.)

But the way the super high payroll teams were headed a lot of them were having to spend so much money filling in gaps in their development channel that for all their extra money they really were not operating at any major advantage to the small market teams.

[MadImmortalMan]

You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?

It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?

[grumbler]

So people can't be desperate to join employment situations akin to slave labor?

Nope.  They'll do so reluctantly, but not enthusiastically.

Who is claiming that the players generate millions of dollars in revenue? Collectively yes, football programs generate typically tens of millions of dollars in revenue for an athletic department (at least talking about the BCS-level schools) but I don't think anyone is saying the players would or should earn millions. There are millions made off of minor league baseball, millions isn't that big of a number in the world of professional sports. And I imagine the NFL would have a development league just like minor league baseball if the college system did not exist.

College baseball exists, and so does minor league baseball.  College hockey exists, and so does minor league hockey.  If college football were such a "slave labor" system, there would be alternatives.  And who says college football players make millions for their schools?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22football+players%22+%22make+millions+for+their+schools%22

Check out Joe Nycera, or Chris Young, or Tim Dahlberg.

Wow, are you from the 1950s? I think Leave it to Beaver is coming on later or maybe you can catch a quick Honeymooners rerun. College kids today are mostly thugs that none of us would want at our dinner table, not this wholesome team-focused do-gooder picture you've painted here.

  Did I wake you up from a nap, Cranky Old Dude?  I know a hell of a lot more "college kids today" than you do, and can tell you that your assumptions bout them are full of shit.

[/quote]

Who is claiming millions to be earned by the players?

Dunno what this even means.

The way a development league would work is the players would sign with the professional club. The very top prospects might get a very nice signing bonus, in the millions. Most players would not, they would just be offered a spot on the team and could work their way to the professional club where they would probably earn a small amount of money for a few years and then sign for a lot in free agency if they're any good (basically how baseball works.) While in the development league they'd earn about what a minor league baseball player makes, which is damn good money for playing a sport but certainly not millions.

Thank you Captain Obvious.  I am sure no one but you knew how development leagues work! 

Like minor league teams, the development leagues would be able to make money through concession sales and ticket revenue. They would also, being affiliated with universities, probably do a large trade in merchandise that most minor league teams don't really do (not many people buy Minor League team merchandise.) Some of the development teams, like some minor league teams, would probably operate at a loss and would be subsidized by the parent team.

Why would these leagues be associated with universities?  They aren't in baseball or hockey.  What university would want to affiliate with a development league when it can have its own team?

[OttoVonBismarck]

You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?

It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?

Well they're never all equal, obviously. It's just the pro sports make it so there is likelihood over time that all teams will experience some level of success and teams that "never win a championship" are the exception. But no people support pro teams for local reasons, e.g. Philly residents support the Phillies, NoVa/DC people support the skins etc.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Why would these leagues be associated with universities?  They aren't in baseball or hockey.  What university would want to affiliate with a development league when it can have its own team?

There's no reason to let them operate their own teams. Just craft law so that any academic institution that offers students scholarships to attend school based on athletics are no longer eligible for any federal money and none of their students are eligible for any federal loans. They go away overnight.

[Valmy]

You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?

It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?

Unless you know somebody personally on the team why should you ever care who wins?  That is the myserious experience of sports fandom...I do not really understand why I care so much for these teams I just do.

[MadImmortalMan]

You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?

It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?

Unless you know somebody personally on the team why should you ever care who wins?  That is the myserious experience of sports fandom...I do not really understand why I care so much for these teams I just do.

Some of the things that are imbalanced or different are what make it fun. It's fun to hate the Yankees and the Red Sox because they are so rich and powerful. It's fun when Ohio State and Michigan are constantly ruining each others' perfect seasons.

[grumbler]

There's no reason to let them operate their own teams. Just craft law so that any academic institution that offers students scholarships to attend school based on athletics are no longer eligible for any federal money and none of their students are eligible for any federal loans. They go away overnight.

You haven't explained (other than your own misguided distaste) why Federal law would do such a bizarre thing.  There's no reason not to allow them to operate their own teams.  It works in hockey, baseball, and other sports.

[PDH]

Unless you know somebody personally on the team why should you ever care who wins?  That is the myserious experience of sports fandom...I do not really understand why I care so much for these teams I just do.

Well, you did know Duell Petsch.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's no reason to let them operate their own teams. Just craft law so that any academic institution that offers students scholarships to attend school based on athletics are no longer eligible for any federal money and none of their students are eligible for any federal loans. They go away overnight.

You haven't explained (other than your own misguided distaste) why Federal law would do such a bizarre thing.  There's no reason not to allow them to operate their own teams.  It works in hockey, baseball, and other sports.

Because I don't want them to operate sports teams, at least not like they do now. I like when the law reflects my personal wishes, I don't need any further reason to support legislation.

[grumbler]

Because I don't want them to operate sports teams, at least not like they do now. I like when the law reflects my personal wishes, I don't need any further reason to support legislation.

No sports teams?  Not even intramural?  Would you allow students to play team frisbee on school grounds, or at all?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Because I don't want them to operate sports teams, at least not like they do now. I like when the law reflects my personal wishes, I don't need any further reason to support legislation.

No sports teams?  Not even intramural?  Would you allow students to play team frisbee on school grounds, or at all?

Actually I said, "at least not like they do now." I'd generally be fine with non-scholarship athletic activity of whatever kind and form the school chose.