NCAA football, 2013-14

[Valmy]

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.

Baseball is completely different culturally.  It has always (well since the 1870s anyway) been about the pro teams.  The Major Leagues always scouted the College teams for players but it was always mainly about the dozens of pro and semi-pro leagues that existed across the country.  College Baseball was never really a thing, most histories of Baseball in America will never even mention it.  The Minor League system is relatively recent (the 1930s I think?) but the idea of minor pro teams is very old with a devoted fanbase and has functioned well for decades and it never had to compete with the University teams.  The pro and College seasons take place at slightly different times, only overlapping in April and May.  College Baseball is entirely a Spring thing while pro Baseball is primarily played in the summer.

The NFL and NBA, on the other hand, only came into existence because of the success of College Football and Basketball.

It is one of the biggest reasons I love College Baseball, most of the players are there because they want to play for Texas or at least get an education.  The big-timers with serious major league ambitions or guys who have no interest in going to College just go right to the Minor Leagues.  College Baseball is small potatoes though with none of the huge cultural significance of College Football or Basketball.

I don't know anything about College Hockey I admit.

[Valmy]

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).

Just curious how often does the NFL take players who have never played College Football?  I am sure there are a few but I cannot think of any off the top of my head.  The NCAA and NFL have a pretty closed system.

[grumbler]

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.

This is probably true of baseball, but is definitely not true of hockey.  Hockey is big (where they play it).

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.

I think that the problem is that college baseball has never gotten out of the shadow of the pros.  They play on the same days, in the same seasons, and only the college fanatic would rather see a college game than a pro game. the best college baseball teams out-perform the best minor league baseball teams when it comes to attendance, though. [edit:  I was incorrect; they don't really have the same seasons.

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.

I don't agree.  Survey after survey has shown that college fans don't care as much about the quality of play as about the other factors that feature in the college games.  Winning was only the fifth-most important reason why fans followed a college team in basketball, according to IPSOS http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=9301.

Now, of course, if you want to define "take a hit" as any decline in fan attendance or TV interest, then I can't argue with that.  But that would certainly be a price worth paying to get the crap out of the college system.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Just curious how often does the NFL take players who have never played College Football?  I am sure there are a few but I cannot think of any off the top of my head.  The NCAA and NFL have a pretty closed system.

They'll occasionally pop up on practice rosters and such, but it isn't a regular thing.  Some team just picked up a guy who had only played rugby or something pretty recently.  UTSA actually had a player on the.....Cowboys roster, I think it was, before they even had a football team.  One of those track guys that get looked at to be a WR because they're fast as hell.

[Valmy]

This is probably true of baseball, but is definitely not true of hockey.  Hockey is big (where they play it).

59 whole schools.  That is a pretty small number.  The top 25 is not much of an honor eh?

[frunk]

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).

Of course they don't want professional athletes, that would be way more expensive.  I also didn't say the program had to be strictly professional, just that if an athlete doesn't meet the academic standard then they can play for the team but not be at the school. 

It's true that it's the attachment to the school that attracts the attention not the athletes, but there's a big caveat there.  If the school isn't competitive at the level that it is at (doesn't get the best players it can), particularly if this lasts for an extended time, then see how the interest and money dry up.  It's an arms race in effect.  The only way the schools would stop recruiting every athlete they can get regardless of academic ability is if it was imposed from above, and the NCAA isn't going to do it in any real sense and the government definitely shouldn't do it.

[Rasputin]

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

AAR? How was the energy in that stadium?

ive never had a more amazing game day experience...i plan to post some details and pics

[frunk]

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?

It doesn't work precisely because it has massive competition from the college system.  If college athletics disappeared tomorrow then a feeder league would be perfectly viable (and would appear quite quickly), but it's tough to fight something that has this much investment and interest with another product.

[lustindarkness]

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

AAR? How was the energy in that stadium?

ive never had a more amazing game day experience...i plan to post some details and pics

[frunk]

Just curious how often does the NFL take players who have never played College Football?  I am sure there are a few but I cannot think of any off the top of my head.  The NCAA and NFL have a pretty closed system.

I remember seeing some community college players.

[Berkut]

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?

It doesn't work precisely because it has massive competition from the college system.  If college athletics disappeared tomorrow then a feeder league would be perfectly viable (and would appear quite quickly), but it's tough to fight something that has this much investment and interest with another product.

Your wrong. Completely wrong.

People are fans of college <insert sport here> because they are fans of the colleges, not because they are fans of the particular sport being played at a less than top tier professional level.

If the University of Arizona nixed their basketball team tomorrow, the attention I pay to Arizona basketball would NOT shift to some minor league professional team. If anything, it would shift to a NBA team, at best, and most likely I would simply spend that time on some other activity. For myself, I don't care for the NBA, and I would care for D-League NBA even less than the NBA.

People are not fans of college sports because they have some gap that isn't being filled by major league professional sports, that would or could be filled by minor league professional sports.

[frunk]

Your wrong. Completely wrong.

People are fans of college <insert sport here> because they are fans of the colleges, not because they are fans of the particular sport being played at a less than top tier professional level.

If the University of Arizona nixed their basketball team tomorrow, the attention I pay to Arizona basketball would NOT shift to some minor league professional team. If anything, it would shift to a NBA team, at best, and most likely I would simply spend that time on some other activity. For myself, I don't care for the NBA, and I would care for D-League NBA even less than the NBA.

People are not fans of college sports because they have some gap that isn't being filled by major league professional sports, that would or could be filled by minor league professional sports.

Who's talking about popularity or it replacing college enthusiasm?  I'm talking about a feeder and development league for the pros.  It doesn't have to be a massive 600+ team system that satisfies your desire to root for a team, it has to develop and nurture talent for the NFL and NBA.

[Valmy]

Who's talking about popularity or it replacing college enthusiasm?  I'm talking about a feeder and development league for the pros.  It doesn't have to be a massive 600+ team system that satisfies your desire to root for a team, it has to develop and nurture talent for the NFL and NBA.

Wouldn't it be?  There are almost 300 Minor League baseball teams and they do not need as many players per team as the NFL.

[frunk]

Wouldn't it be?  There are almost 300 Minor League baseball teams and they do not need as many players per team as the NFL.

I don't think players per team enters into how many teams would be needed.  Only a small fraction of minor league baseball players make it to the majors, so I think the number of minor league teams is in excess of function (if that's their function).  Presumably people want to go to minor league baseball games so that's how many minor league teams you end up with.

[Berkut]

Your wrong. Completely wrong.

People are fans of college <insert sport here> because they are fans of the colleges, not because they are fans of the particular sport being played at a less than top tier professional level.

If the University of Arizona nixed their basketball team tomorrow, the attention I pay to Arizona basketball would NOT shift to some minor league professional team. If anything, it would shift to a NBA team, at best, and most likely I would simply spend that time on some other activity. For myself, I don't care for the NBA, and I would care for D-League NBA even less than the NBA.

People are not fans of college sports because they have some gap that isn't being filled by major league professional sports, that would or could be filled by minor league professional sports.

Who's talking about popularity or it replacing college enthusiasm?  I'm talking about a feeder and development league for the pros.  It doesn't have to be a massive 600+ team system that satisfies your desire to root for a team, it has to develop and nurture talent for the NFL and NBA.

It has to be financially viable as well. It has to "work" as a league in its own right, at least to some extent.

Like I said, what you propose is fine if you want to propose a system that just destroys college sports altogether. But if that is the case, who cares who it is done?

You are arguing like there is some compelling argument being made that we have to preserve college sports for the sake of the major professional leagues, and that argument is being made by people who care about college athletics, as if your typical college sports fan is a college fan because they want to make sure the NFL has a good way of developing players.

But this has been my point in response to your posts (and maybe you don't even disagree with it, and maybe you don't even care):

Proposing a means to replace a particular function of college sports (evaluating and preparing players for a professional career) as an argument for why it would be ok to get rid of college sports is kind of, well, irrelevant. It's like arguing that it would be ok to ban bicycles because people could still get exercise by cross country skiing. It might be true, but who cares? Certainly not the people who care about riding bicycles.