NCAA football, 2013-14

[grumbler]

I am sure he is just waiting by the phone.

Actually it seems they just gave the job to the Alabama OC without even calling Jim.  FIRE THE AD

That's an interesting hire.  Nussmeier was seen as the ideal candidate but unavailable; seems, though, that Saban was looking to get rid of him anyway.  The question will be;  how long can Michigan keep him?  He seems like a sure-fire HC candidate in the next year or two.

[grumbler]

I am in favor of major reforms, basically detaching the teams from the Student Bodies and only allowing those who qualify to actually attend classes and paying the players for their services.  But you have to be really careful because no politician would risk the rage and fury of the population if you tried to take away something like College Football.  There might just be an insurrection.

I've never understood this mentality.  Why would a university be interested in getting into the professional football and basketball businesses, and how could such professional (or semi-pro) leagues as you propose possibly prosper?  Almost all of the athletic departments lose money right now; detaching football and basketball from the student body and making them separate profit centers would screw over every sport at every university, because football and basketball subsidize the rest of the sports.

I think meaningful reform involves making the obligate themselves to supporting student-athletes through graduation (no matter how long that takes) and reforming standards of admission so that you don't allow athletes who can't perform as students to be admitted to university.  Taking those steps would obligate the NBA and NFL to establish some pipeline for high school graduates who can't make it through college, just as baseball and hockey do now.  And the NFL and NBA are the people who should be taking on that responsibility, not universities.

[frunk]

I think meaningful reform involves making the obligate themselves to supporting student-athletes through graduation (no matter how long that takes) and reforming standards of admission so that you don't allow athletes who can't perform as students to be admitted to university.  Taking those steps would obligate the NBA and NFL to establish some pipeline for high school graduates who can't make it through college, just as baseball and hockey do now.  And the NFL and NBA are the people who should be taking on that responsibility, not universities.

As long as football and basketball teams are attached to the school I don't think you'll get meaningful reforms as far as entry requirements for athletes.  There's way too much interest and money to stop schools from enrolling that high school player with the 4.5 40 and a terrible academic record.  I think the better way, if schools just have to have these programs, is to take out the student from student-athlete.  Let them play for the school, but they aren't enrolled in the academic program (and won't get a degree) unless they could get in with "athleticism blind" admissions.

As far as the NFL and the NBA creating a separate feeder program, I think you'll find colleges and the NCAA fighting them tooth and nail over any such thing.  They wouldn't want to lose their recruits to an outside organization.

[lustindarkness]

Wow. On way to lax to return. Amazing game. Amazing stadium. Aar to follow

AAR? How was the energy in that stadium?

[Valmy]

As far as the NFL and the NBA creating a separate feeder program, I think you'll find colleges and the NCAA fighting them tooth and nail over any such thing.  They wouldn't want to lose their recruits to an outside organization.

LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own.  Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.

[frunk]

LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own.  Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.

A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need.  Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.

[Valmy]

LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own.  Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.

A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need.  Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.

Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me.  They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.

[Berkut]

LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own.  Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.

A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need.  Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.

I don't think that is even vaguely true. In fact, it has largely been tried, and is likely even being done right now with things like the NBA D League. The quality of play is probably a little higher, but I do not think that you get anywhere near the coaching that you get at the major D1 level, simply because there isn't any money in it.

If you are a great coach, you aren't hanging out in the D League making relative pennies when you could be making millions in the NBA or major D1 level.

All this talk of "feeder" systems misses one rather important fact:

College football works - it generates revenues and pays for itself and then some for the schools involved. It is setup the way it is because that is what the people who pay for it (fans) and the people who run it (school administrators) want, and it is a *product* that has a proven value in the marketplace.

It is just silly to think that they should throw away that product and replace it with one that we can be pretty sure nobody will want to buy...for what reason, exactly?

[grumbler]

As long as football and basketball teams are attached to the school I don't think you'll get meaningful reforms as far as entry requirements for athletes.  There's way too much interest and money to stop schools from enrolling that high school player with the 4.5 40 and a terrible academic record.  I think the better way, if schools just have to have these programs, is to take out the student from student-athlete.  Let them play for the school, but they aren't enrolled in the academic program (and won't get a degree) unless they could get in with "athleticism blind" admissions.

I don't see any motive for universities to make their athletes professionals.  Most universities lose money on athletics as is; adding in player salaries (even if you can get rid of some tuition-scholarship money) isn't an attractive option for most schools.

The interest and money comes to schools from having teams, not from having specific athletes.  College football did just fine in the era before they started accepting functional illiterates to play football or basketball for them, and would do just fine if there was a semi-pro league that took the top 5% (or whatever) of high school football or basketball players.

The better way is for schools to increase their admission standards by NCAA regulation, and then play with the student-athletes they can get.  Having pro teams would cost them all the fans they have who just want to watch college football, without gaining them much from the people who like pro football (and who can watch the NFL, instead).

As far as the NFL and the NBA creating a separate feeder program, I think you'll find colleges and the NCAA fighting them tooth and nail over any such thing.  They wouldn't want to lose their recruits to an outside organization.

Nope.  The system works just fine for, say, hockey and baseball.  As long as the competition is fair, it doesn't matter if the top players in baseball or hockey are playing for the minor leagues or the universities. The same would be true of football and basketball.

[Berkut]

LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own.  Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.

A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need.  Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.

Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me.  They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.

I think they also found that they simply are not economically viable. They spent a gigantic pile of cash trying to get a minor-league type system working in Europe (where obviously there isn't a school level infrastructure in place for American football) and found that they just could not make it work financially. It lost money hand over fist.

Fans are fans - by definition they have to have some cultural affinity for being fans. That can be provided in a number of different ways, but for college football it is allegiance to the school. That might be the school you went to, or your dad went to, or the local school, or whatever. But it needs to be some kind of shared emotional attachment.

That exists for college sports right now. And whether it ought to or not, it is a hugely powerful market force. You cannot simply replace it with a "feeder" league, and expect anyone to give two shits about it. The University of Arizona School of Football (Denver Broncos affiliate) is not the same thing.

If you replaced the current system with something else, you would not really be replacing the current system at all - you would be discarding the current system, and creating a new one that nobody would care about. Just like the NBA D-League. At best, you could hope for the level of support you see for AAA baseball, but even that would be unlikely, since minor league baseball, for as tepid as it's support base it, is at least based on decades and decades of history.

[grumbler]

Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me.  They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.

Agreed, but if the colleges passed rules that increased minimum student-athlete academic standards, then the NFL and NBA would have to create some alternative for the players whom they want to see developed, but who can't get into college.

[Berkut]

Nope.  The system works just fine for, say, hockey and baseball.  As long as the competition is fair, it doesn't matter if the top players in baseball or hockey are playing for the minor leagues or the universities. The same would be true of football and basketball.

But college hockey and baseball are not even remotely as popular as basketball and football, not even as a function of their popularity at the professional level.

And I think a lot of that is very much because everyone knows that if you are a very good baseball player, even if you aren't MLB level good, you are going to go play in the pro's rather than college. The "path" for the better players (and again,  I am not even talking about the best players) is high school, minor league, then maybe MLB. Some go to college, but mostly not, and I think that is one of the reasons college baseball will never really be all that popular.

Contrast this with college basketball, where even though the very best players may not play college ball (and the very best who do won't stay long), the "B" level high school players all still go to college, and you still get a very high level of play in college. I think if college basketball lost most of those players to a professional minor league system like what you see in baseball, the overall interest in college basketball would take a hit.

[Berkut]

Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me.  They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.

Agreed, but if the colleges passed rules that increased minimum student-athlete academic standards, then the NFL and NBA would have to create some alternative for the players whom they want to see developed, but who can't get into college.

The NBA at least has some options already, with the D-League, and multiple second tier professional leagues in Canada and Europe that could "season" players. And I think this happens already. Sadly, one of the effects of this is that there are a lot of very good high school basketball players who think they could make it in the NBA, who *could* have solid college careers and a free education, who shoot for the stars instead and end up with nothing.

The NFL...I don't see how they could make it work. There has been a few attempts at creating a economically viable "minor" league of football, but they've all been failures.

[alfred russel]

Rasputin,
Those revenues also get spent on lavish coaches salaries and perks, large stadiums and facilities, fat recruitment budgets.

Sure there is a decent chunk of change left over, at least for the more successful programs.  It helps when through a helpful loophole in the labor laws, you can run your de facto professional sports league without paying out cash to the labor.  Even then, the less successful programs are going to struggle to break even.  There is another elistism at work, which gets back to some of berkut's SEC critique.

At the end of the day it comes down to saying whether an evil should be tolerated because of the good that it can produce as a by-product.
There is no way to answer that question purely objectively.  But the PSU affair should give reason to pause.  The way a supposedly model institution acted at all levels, with official connivance, to protect the money flow at all costs is an object lesson in how deep the corruption can run.

Every sport is ultimately going to have a feeder system to the highest level. In international soccer, you have promising youths pulled into soccer academies at a young age to focus on the sport. In American baseball, to the extent the college system isn't used, you have minor league teams that people join out of high school.

The problem in both of those systems is that the guys that don't make it into the professional ranks, or make it into the professional ranks but don't earn and save enough to live the rest of their lives, are left uneducated and without major marketable skills.

For all the criticism, the system used in football is probably the best system out there. While many guys may not take advantage of the education they get, many do. There is some criticism of college football that the players bring in huge revenue but only get scholarships. I won't say that is totally unfair, but a truely professional model won't work in college athletics and ultimately the association with the colleges is what brings in the revenue. For instance, the D League in the NBA may actually be a better product skill wise than NCAA basketball, but it doesn't have nearly the fan interest. It is hard to envision a minor league system for the NFL drawing in excess of 100k to many games and getting such extensive television coverage.

As for the schools comprimising themselves, I don't see the harm in saying, "Football players bring in extensive revenue to this school and more than pay for their scholarships. We will accept quite marginal applicants that can contribute to the football team, and educate them to the best of our ability. Some will be able to earn degrees, some will not. For those that can not, we will still give them the best educational opportunities we can."

[Berkut]

Gotta agree with Dorsey.

I for one do not think college athletes should be paid, for example. Or rather, I don't think  they should be paid specifically as if they were not paid now, because they ARE paid now.

The argument that it is not economically reasonable to not have to pay athletes simply fails on even the most basic economic principles.

If in fact the athletes were not compensated for their time and efforts in a manner that is valuable and worthwhile...then why are there literally hundreds of "applicants" for each potential position? Of course the answer is because they all know perfectly well that what they get out of a college athletic scholarship is worth a rather large amount. If any particular athlete feels it is not worth it for them, that the schools keep more than they should, there is a very, very simple solution for them: don't accept a scholarship until one is offered more to your liking, or go sell your services elsewhere (and certainly in some cases many athletes make exactly that choice, and more power to them).