College football needs fundamental changes. But a playoff? That's just something selfish fans want when they should focus on what's most important: helping the players get what they deserve.
Jan 11, 2012 - The BCS is looking at changing itself. It was all over the major sports websites (except ESPN.com, which televises the Bowl Championship Series) on Tuesday. And, for the first time in my life, I can say I feel sorta like Clark Gable.
Except I'm way past not giving a damn. I'm now infuriated by the selfish, borderline sociopathic mentality that makes anyone think changing the postseason should be anywhere near the top of anyone's college athletics to-do list. If the NCAA is run by two-legged, Orwellian pigs, playoffs and plus-ones would be their bicycles.
The system, the big one, is broken. By comparison, the BCS is simply unpopular.
Coaches already have an unhealthy amount of control. Rogue boosters and shady agents are the invisible hands guiding an underground personnel market not terribly unlike human trafficking. Academic legitimacy is clearly incompatible with the demands, on all parties, of big-time college football. And, in futile defiance of economic theory, common sense and human decency, the market wage for coveted talent remains depressed to an "education" too many players are incapable of redeeming.
But, if everyone puts their heads together, we can come up with a playoff system that can only drive up the stakes and make things worse!
Of all the corrupt things surrounding college athletics, no matter what they may say in Boise, postseason reform is small potatoes. While the BCS as a championship system could be better, it isn't wrong. It's obviously imperfect, and its potential for error and PR catastrophe is high. But as things go in the broken world of college sports, the BCS is one of the few things that does what it says it will. The sport it influences so greatly is overwhelmingly popular and lucrative on nearly every level. Until the masses stop acknowledging its champions, to call the BCS illegitimate is disingenuous.
What's wrong is how poorly players are compensated for their efforts. What's worse is how powerless they are to do anything about it. And if that's not bad enough, their plight is ignored while a friggin' playoff is discussed using terms like "access" and "opportunity," the sort of rhetoric used in fights for civil rights.
Coaches have the power to, literally, punish their players with hunger, and I'm supposed to care that the Boone Pickens All-Stars didn't get the shot at the title they "deserved"? Schools like Rutgers, which pays its head football coach over $2 million, opposed giving its players a stipend of roughly $60 per week. They continue to fight against the return of four-year scholarships, which makes it prohibitively risky for players to organize and mobilize to protect their own interests.
Those are civil rights issues. What's a playoff going to do to fix them?
What will any new postseason format do to help the players? Remember them? Seeing how effective fans could be if they just watched something else in January, the players' cause is a worthier use of consumer pressure. They're actually who the NCAA -- and anyone associated with it -- are supposed to be helping. It even says so on their website.
THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.
We, as fans, get more than we need. There is more football on television on every week than anyone imagined possible 30 years ago. Technology has allowed people to take virtual field trips across the country to immerse themselves in the regional flavor and local fanaticism that makes college football unique in the different parts of the world. Athletes are better than they've ever been, and the schemes they run are more entertaining and complex. Throw in smack-talk on social media, and both the average and hardcore college football fan has an embarrassment of riches at his or her disposal, all acquired at minimal cost to the consumer.
And we get all this while being entitled to absolutely nothing. We don't need anything else. And when a rematch of a boring game between two teams without an exciting, flashy offensive player between the two of them gets double-digit ratings, fans and scribes sure as hell don't need a playoff. They just want one really badly.
At some point, it has to be about more than us. The NCAA is skewered for its hypocrisy, but those who cover and consume college athletics don't have much room to judge. As things sputter out of control in the name of feeding the beast, the public's thirst for a playoff is just as selfish and monstrous.
The current era of college football will be remembered for its scandals. The ‘80s saw SMU and Charles Thompson, but those were topped by Nevin Shapiro and Jerry Sandusky in the last five months. Auburn's national championship will always smell like Cecil Newton. North Carolina lost its pristine brand in a scandal of uncommon breadth (and never got more than eight wins for its trouble). Ohio State almost lost the ship because it flagrantly scoffed at the NCAA and its rules...over some tattoos.
All of these things happened as a result of competition. The brands are too big for anything like losing, suspensions or child molestation to interfere. And players, always, wind up being collateral damage. These are the things conference commissioners need to address before fixing what isn't really broken.
That's not to say the BCS isn't a racket. Dan Wetzel and Josh Peter's Death to the BCS makes it transparent that running a bowl is a license to steal. The corruption behind the Fiesta Bowl was a handy visual aid. But really, is a new system run by the same parties going to be better?
The BCS is a symptom, not the disease. This whole game is a racket at its core. Unpaid labor isn't just a financial windfall (and workers compensation laws). It's part of the brand identity, a phony way of selling the idea are playing for more something more noble than self and/or survival. College football is like a red, white and blue t-shirt made in a sweatshop with a "made in America" tag stitched on at the end.
So forgive me if "change" sounds more like rearranging furniture to me.
Of course, plenty of people stand to gain from a new postseason. Some project a tournament could gross $1.1 billion per year for schools. And if TV networks would foot much of that $1.1 billion, imagine what they bring in themselves. Football fans, whose insatiable thirst for football drives many to watch even the most bootleg bowls, would love their own month of madness.
But when something goes wrong or rules get broken as programs try to get their hands on even more money, the blame will continue to go to the players. Money will surround them, and they'll be punished for daring to touch it. And when it's time to answer for that inevitability, the pigs leave that fight to the poor guys with no one to protect them. And fans and media will jump on the pile, as they always have.
So what would players get from an altered postseason? The same "pay," maybe more games and chances to be the next Melvin Bratton or Willis McGahee, greater temptation, and more missed classes. Only two schools will play for a title -- just like now -- so few of them will even get to be vaunted "true champions." They'll just get a lot more hell and no more money, and the public will be there to make sure they receive both.
We scream for them when they play well and holler at them when they do wrong. But when it's time to lend our voices to support them, the world's already too hoarse to help.
For once, I'd like to see a sweeping change in college athletics that repairs what's fundamentally broken and benefits the guys who take all the risk. In the meantime, I'd settle for seeing the energy used by the responsible and powerful put toward kids before adults' fun time.
Instead, we might get a playoff. Whoop-dee-damn-doo.
116 comments
1
May 24
3
May 24
1
May 21
23
May 19
2
May 18
12
May 18
7
May 16
2
Mar 1
Bomani Jones:
If A College Football Playoff Won't Help Players, We Don't Need It
116
Jan 11
1
Oct 27
Comments
Civil Rights issues? I was almost on board until then.
You forget that the players’ involvement is 100% voluntary. If it wasn’t worth it to the players to play, then they wouldn’t.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 11:20 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
I agree on this point. It’s super, super nitpicky, though.
I agree with 99.9% of this post. It’s well thought and and written in a very engaging fashion. But comparing this to civil rights feels like playing a card and does cheapen it a little bit I think.
"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."
@brgulker
by brgulker on Jan 11, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
so...
you have a problem with ME comparing this to civil rights, but not to the people who use the same rhetoric to advocate a playoff? i’m talking about people. they’re talking about games…but i’m the one that’s wrong? cmon now.
by Bomani Jones on Jan 11, 2012 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Civil Rights movement doesn't own the terms "fairness" and "opportunity"
People use those words all the time without equating their issue with civil, human rights. It was you who made that first connection to connect your logic, not the people who uttered the terms.
When my little brother used to whine “that’s not fair” he wasn’t comparing himself to Rosa Parks anymore than OKState fans clamoring for “opportunity” equate themselves to the Equal Opportunity Act.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 12, 2012 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
What a choice
They “pay” them with “scholarship” and tell them what to spend it on, when to spend it, and its cant be given to anyone else. And only good while they are there then?
by Byron Bradley on Jan 13, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
He's contrasting those issues to the non-bcs teams grievances
which are framed in the same sort of ‘fairness’ framework that underlies the idea behind civil rights
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes. This.
"Guess what? I AM THE MANAGER."
by sasmall on Jan 11, 2012 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
SO tired of this...
I went to college – had to work my way through and take on tons of debt. Because I had no athletic ability. College athletes get to play the sport they love and get a FREE education to do so. Worth hundreds of thousands of dollars at schools like Stanford ($200K plus) that doesn’t even come close to the earning potential they have after getting a degree. Plus they get showcased as a player and get the chance to earn millions playing a game. I’m sure RGIII’s civil rights have been violated after he gets millions in NFL money after making a name for himself (and getting a good degree – for FREE) from Baylor.
I agree some of the rules (transfer rules, and ability of players to have more control of their destiny) need to be changed, but I am tired of the righteous and outrage over the horribly exploited college athletes. They are the BMOC at most schools as well by the way. If they can’t afford to be a college athlete then go to school as a regular student — but I’m guessing most would rather have the scholarship!
by shawnvegas on Jan 11, 2012 11:39 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
Invalid argument
Right, but while you were in college, you weren’t a major contributor to a multi-billion dollar a year industry.
You didn’t deserve money. They do.
by rchardy on Jan 11, 2012 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
It has everything to do with it
You deserve your paycheck because you work right?
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
Wrong
I get a paycheck due to the previously agreed upon terms of my employment contract.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 12, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Every student
that works with a professor, participates in a research project, takes a lame in-class measure, puts a butt in a seat, tests well on the ACT/SAT, has a good GPA entering, buys student ticket packages, buys merchandise, qualifies as a N.M. Scholar, goes on to grad school/professional school ad nauseum is contributing the multi-billion dollar economy of a university.
The contributions of some may be more visible, thus more valid to you, but the fact remains every kid is a contributor and athletes are already feted, fed, have access to world class education, health care, housing, academic support and a bevy of other options not available to even academic all-stars.
Don’t discount the efforts of every other student on campus to make an individually incremental and cumulative effort to a “multi-billion dollar a year industry”. They already do. It’s called education.
Inanity @gothlaw
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jan 11, 2012 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
No, no they don’t. Room/board and meals are typically not included in the majority of athletic scholarships.
Follow @AlfieBCC
by Alfie Crow on Jan 11, 2012 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
They sure are in D1 football scholarships.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2012 8:15 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, they are.
Inanity @gothlaw
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jan 12, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
this
you want to get a free education, be exceptional at something.
if you’re not exceptional at something, that’s on no one but you.
by Loretta8 on Jan 18, 2012 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
You can’t make an argument that they are being exploited when they voluntarily enter into an agreement with their university. Furthermore, the NCAA stipulates a certain amount of practice hours (I believe it is 20), though personal workouts and weight training certainly take up more. They are protected from abuse, and when that fails, as happened in Michigan, the University is punished. The example of UCLA withholding food checks is an anomaly, which is why is was a story. To try and make it appear commonplace is disingenuous.
For many kids who play, they won’t make millions of dollars on the field, but they will get a free education. I don’t see anyone up in arms about the thousands of college students that work significantly more hours, attend class, pay the tuition that actually allows those universities to function (not just make a profit), and often have far less individual earning potential. For less than full-time employment, these student athletes receive full room and board, tuition, and all the additional benefits that universities offer their players (I know UGA offers scooters and various other NCAA permissible things). That is tens of thousands of dollars in recompense and a chance to be drafted to make millions. Sure, a $60 stipend wouldn’t hurt, but to argue it is a travesty is a mistake.
by GeorgiaGator on Jan 11, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
You do realize
that literally like 3-4 players on any given team get a FREE education, right? And even then that only covers tuition and not room and board and books, etc. These guys do take out loans, they do have to go to work and class and play football. So please, stop it.
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson
"I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence." -Lupe Fiasco
by Marty Mart on Jan 11, 2012 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree that the scholarships should cover full costs.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
They'll never do that though
they don’t even give out enough scholarships to cover full football teams at this point. Not to mention that the NCAA is responsible for scholarships for all other college sports as well and the number of those people are only increasing as more go to college.
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson
"I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence." -Lupe Fiasco
by Marty Mart on Jan 11, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
So major college football needs to leave the NCAA
form their own governance group since the issues (and $$) are so unique to the sport. Let the NCAA govern basketball and the non-revenue sports.
Right now NCAA rules are a catchall applying to football, basketball, and women’s golf. Obviously that catch-all is not the best for each individual sport.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you
but the NCAA isn’t just a “non-profit” agency, it’s a brand and to lose the affiliation with the schools would be difficult. People don’t seem to care to watch amateur football without college affiliation because there are other amateur leagues, but they don’t get the benefit of being able to be on television and don’t have the backing of the NFL like that
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson
"I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence." -Lupe Fiasco
by Marty Mart on Jan 11, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
The NCAA is in place to project the aura of compliance and academic missions
Football would have to put into place a governing body just like it in order to keep its tax exempt status, artificially lower wages, monetize athlete likenesses, and shield itself against workman’s comp/health claims.
by JayDevil on Jan 11, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Stop this
They do not get a free education will this big lie please die. Players are directed to majors that give them the best chance of making grades not setting them up for after football it takes a player with a huge set of balls and 5 stars to stand up to the coach. Robert Smith was pressured to take an easier path than pre med but because he was Robert Smith he took a year off and no one was going to drop his scholarship. Rolle at FSU was discouraged from taking pre med classes and his NFL draft stock was hurt for being too smart. Most kids go along with the program because they know they will be asked to transfer if they don’t.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
THIS!!!
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane." - W. Jennings
"Without spirits the men cannot support the fatigues of a long campaign" - Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene
thetwitter
by TheDutchWonder on Jan 11, 2012 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
You don’t have to have “athletic ability” to get a free ride in college. The vast majority of students who do get a free ride don’t have an athletic fiber in their body.
Poor, poor argument based on jealousy.
Follow @AlfieBCC
by Alfie Crow on Jan 11, 2012 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's called life
The vast majority of these kids will never play in a higher league once they graduate. Most people work for a big time corporation that pays us as little as possible while raking in profits from the work we do.
I would have loved to be born with the talents to get a scholarship to play a college sport. It didn’t happen so I was stuck paying for my education.(10 years later still paying for it).
How much is enough to pay these kids? $100 a week, $200 week? I guarantee you can never pay some kids enough, there will always be that “guy” who just can’t manage to live without the things he wants, not always the things he needs.
College football at most colleges pay for all the other sports.( both men and womens) That is why so many smaller colleges are more than happy to take that beat down early season to big time programs.
Most get a free or even reduced ride through school and quite frankly that is payment enough.
"Next season will be better" circa 1990
by Yarin on Jan 11, 2012 11:42 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Haha but the coaches for some reason deserve multi-million dollar salaries and private jets?
Why not let the market decide how much these guys make?
If the NFL didn’t force these guys to play in college, it would be a different story. The fact that they’re forced to work for several years, at the risk of getting injured, before they can make money… that’s just the definition of indentured servitude.
Finally, your college situation has nothing at all to do with the fact that these athletes are providing a service the market wants to pay for, but their management structure won’t allow them to accept payment. Nobody wanted to pay for your services in college… so it’s a moot point.
by rchardy on Jan 11, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The market decides how much the total product is worth
The CEOs decide how to distribute that profit in wages, bonuses, benefits, etc.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Funny how market forces are only allowed to affect one side of the equation.
CougCenter | Cougar Sports Weekly | @NussCoug
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 11, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Your missing the point
Market forces only ever decide the one side, which is the total worth.
Its always been up to the business then to do what it finds best with the profit..
The public decides it wants iPads and how much it wants to pay for them. Apple then decides how much of the proceeds go to payroll, investment, capital, fixed costs, etc.
The market has already decided how much money its sending to college football. Paying players won’t change that amount, it will just be up to the NCAA, ADs, or presidents or whoever to decide how to redistribute their funds.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 12, 2012 1:36 PM EST up reply actions
"You're" missing the point of how market forces work
If a CEO doesn’t provide adequate compensation to workers, they will find another company who will. Because of this, workers in the real world get paid what they’re worth to the company.
If NCAA caps compensation to players, the players are stuck with it. Because of this, players do not get paid what they’re worth to the company (school).
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Uh, right
If players felt playing college ball in exchange for scholarship + NFL training wasn’t worth it, then they’d stop signing up.
These players know what they’re signing up for. They aren’t blindsided when they find out there is no game check (well, except for the SEC).
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 12, 2012 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
What about these market forces you claimed?
If by “market” you meant “monopsony employment”, then yes that is a one-sided market. But that is not what people usually mean when they say “let the market forces decide”: they mean let buyer and seller bargain in a free market to determine the price/wages.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
the nfl forcing guys to wait
is in a collectively bargained agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. The NCAA can’t do anything about it even if they wanted to. There are some things that can’t be pinned on the NCAA
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 12:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The NCAA can do something about but won't
The NCAA can inform the NFL tommorow that until the age rule is eliminated by the NFL and NBA employees from those two orginaztions and its members will no longer be welcomed on campus. That game film will no longer be provided to them.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
okay
The NFL and NBA open scouting combines open to all players. Lots of players don’t get seen anyway, miss out on possible NFL career. Problem not solved.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 1:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Huh?
The NCAA would only be making it harder for NFL and NBA scouts to do their jobs. While they might not have all 22 game tape they would still have TV feeds. They would still have the combine just not pro days.
It might not work to change the rule but there are things the NCAA can do to the pros to change the rule. Hell if the NCAA really wanted to do something to the pros they would not televise their post season tournment and give the NBA free branding for the players.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
first off
you and I know that the NCAA likes the age limit so they can keep kids in school. So all of this is moot anyway.
But lets pretend that they do wanna try and push the NBA and NFL to change their rules. You’re saying that the best way to go about it is to shut down televised college sports? You think that’s gonna hurt the NFL? They’ll just put half their games on Saturdays and charge the networks twice as much. Meanwhile, about 50 schools drop to Division II or III because why pay for so many scholarships if you’re not getting TV money or national branding.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 4:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Changing the age limit in football (or years removed from highschool rather)
Won’t change much at all in terms of draft. Very few players are physically ready for the NFL as true sophomores, freshmen, or right out of high school. NFL is not the NBA, even without an artifically imposed limit, what changes? How many college players are physically ready and would be drafted after their freshmen and sophomore seasons?
So few as to not be a factor.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 12, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
They could also lobby Congress to make clear
that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act actually means what it says (not to mention what it’s called) and protects workers against discrimination on the basis of youth as well as on the basis of being older.
That’s a real civil rights issue, and one which would help more than just college athletes (though they would certainly be among the highest-profile beneficiaries).
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jan 12, 2012 7:35 AM EST up reply actions
its not about Congress its about the courts
In a sketchy ruling, a federal appeals court basically gave the green light to the NFL rule in the Maurice Clarett case. Seeing how the supreme court refused to hear the case, it seems like it would be tough to go that route again (especially because Sotomayer was one of the judges that ruled with the NFL). But I’m no lawyer.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 12, 2012 9:06 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
That ruling dealt with antitrust law
Collective bargaining agreements are exempt from antitrust laws, for historical and efficiency reasons.
(Clarett was arguing that the exemption didn’t apply to the age rule and thus that the employers acted illegally by working together. The rule itself wasn’t unlawful, even in his view— only the means by which the rule was put into effect.)
What CBAs are not exempt from, unless the law specifically carves them out, is general employment laws. A union cannot agree to, for instance, pay its workers sub-minimum wage, or agree that the employer will hire only white males.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jan 12, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
right
But if its such a slam dunk for discrimination, why didn’t they approach it from that angle. I’m asking not arguing.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 12, 2012 8:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It's not a slam dunk
Quite the opposite. It’s a sure loser. The ADEA as it stands has been interpreted, and at this point it’s essentially settled law, to provide no protections to workers who are discriminated against because of youth.
The only real solution is for Congress to amend the ADEA. Which it should do anyway (given the shocking rates of unemployment among today’s youth in the 18-30 age range, the last thing we need is arbitrary prejudice piled on top of the already significant legitimate barrier of lack of lengthy work experience), but having a major player in American life put justice ahead of profits couldn’t hurt.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2012 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
Flaw in the argument is this
The notion that greedy people will be less greedy if you don’t give them more money. By definition a greedy person cannot be more or less greedy, a less greedy person isn’t really greedy and more greedy person is redundancy. Adding money will not aid nor hinder the advancement of the players to receive fair compensation for their work.
Of course players getting paid is the more serious issue but it is independent from having a playoff or not. It will be just as difficult getting this players paid without a playoff as it would with a playoff. Either way you are trying to take money away from greedy people and they will fight tooth and nail not to lose money but to gain more money.
If you’re asking to address issues by order of importance then that is the ideal situation. But we don’t live in an ideal world, you have to take what you can get while you can get it. I agree that every season goes by the injustice these kids face is greater since the money become larger. But the only way currently to really get change is for people to talk with their pocketbook. Is the die hard fan who has been going to every home Alabama game for the last 20 years really going to stop going so the student-athlete can get paid? Will they stop watching it on TV, clicking stories on the internet, buying paraphernalia? That is the only way to get change. Whats the likely hood of that happening?
The only way for the players to get paid is for them to take a stand and put their own fortunes at risk and stop playing. Do like a football sit-in if you will. That is how change occurred during the Civil Rights movement. People risked their own future to make a stand for change, change they might ultimately never see. It shouldn’t be this way but that is the reality that we live in. Its going to take guys missing their own games, risking their NFL future, to create change in college football. Don’t expect the fans to do anything until the players do something.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 11:45 AM EST reply actions
needs more wire references
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 11:46 AM EST via mobile reply actions
If it was such a terrible racket
Why do so many draft-eligible players come back for their Jr (RS) and Sr seasons?
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 11:51 AM EST reply actions
Because of the market power of the NFL
and the pressure they can exert to push border-line players to come back the following year for more free scouting/training
Plus the NCAA’s complicity through not allowing players to choose to return to school despite entering the draft and either going undrafted or being drafted low.
Ultimately, the entity that profits the most from the current system is the NFL, who doesn’t have to pay for free scouting, training, and marketing of potential stars before they ever get paid by a team in the league.
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
So what value do you put on
the free career training that the NFL requires?
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
Define value
and to whom that value is going to
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
The NFL doesn't want kids out of highschool
If your career goal is to be in the NFL, you’re going to need training, conditioning, practice, reps, marketing, etc to improve yourself.
How much would 18 yr old Joe Nocollege have to pay to personal trainers, personal position coaches, football clinics, etc for 3 years to prepare for NFL draft?
Thats the value.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Hence my point that it's the NFL that profits the most
In fact, the amount of market power they have in this particular realm might be enough to bring anti-trust issues.
FWIW, the NFL doesn’t really care whether it’s colleges that do the training or semi-pro teams. They’ve tried to start their own farm teams, but there isn’t enough fan interest for semi-pro teams paralleling college teams to make it profitable for the NFL.
My opinion is that since the NFL is the one that benefits the most from the additional years of development and scouting, they should be the ones setting up a compensation pool for all players.
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
The government allows the NCAA
and other major sports leagues to act as monopolies otherwise the anti-trust thing would’ve been a go a long time ago
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson
"I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence." -Lupe Fiasco
by Marty Mart on Jan 11, 2012 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Not every player
There are a small handful of players every year out of HS that would be drafted fairly high in the NFL draft. This year for example Dorial Green-Beckham would go very high. Last year Clowny would have been at worst a 3rd rounder. The rule exist because teams know they would draft out of HS and freshman if they were allowed too other wise there is no need for the rule.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
The age requirement is there because a HS kid will get hurt in the first season more than likely and will probably fail to live up to expectations. 2 years of college might not seem like a lot but it strengthens them physically and mentally.
by diff13 on Jan 11, 2012 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
If this was a concern teams would not draft them and there would be no reason for the rule. I know different sport with different levels of physicality and violence but high school basketball players and 1 and dones have had no problem playing the NBA. Age rules are put in place to make someone else pay for the devolpment of players.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
What a ham-fisted article
What a terribly written article, couldn’t even follow most of it.
by battler on Jan 11, 2012 12:41 PM EST reply actions
might wanna go back and work on comprehension then man
it’s really not that difficult
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson
"I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence." -Lupe Fiasco
by Marty Mart on Jan 11, 2012 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
let me guess
You went to a college that focused on football as opposed to the inculcation of critical reading skills.
Fire Gilbride
by epb2102 on Jan 11, 2012 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
there's a solution for that
they do still make hooked on phonics, right? if you can’t follow the logic, that’s on how you were raised, kiddo.
by Bomani Jones on Jan 11, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My opinion
First off I disagree with the article especially with comparing it to a rights movement. A lot of players are given scholarships which to any college student is extremely valuable. Plus if they prove worthy of moving on to the NFL than they just got a substantial job for not having to graduate college. But enough with that. A playoff would be interesting for the fact that one anything different than the system now is worth a look. To satisfy sponsors each game in the playoffs can be a bowl like the Tostitos bowl. give it 5 years and if it is a total disappointment than it gets discarded and another way is addressed. But I think it will be entertaining especially if some of the underdog teams push their way into the Finals (which major Universities would frown on for the chance of being embarrassed) For some reason every sport and at every level (besides NCAA Football) there is a playoff and i doubt its just coincidence that it is successful
by diff13 on Jan 11, 2012 1:00 PM EST reply actions
Stop with this big lie too
No not every sport at every level has a playoff tounrment. The 2 most popular sports league in the word do not have playoffs and easily could. Never mind many indivdiual sports and motor racing.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
Soccer doesn’t? Rugby Doesn’t? NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA baseball and basketball doesn’t? Your dreaming if you think that 2 most popular sports in the world don’t have playoffs. and Motor sports don’t count with this but their system is different than physical sports.
by diff13 on Jan 11, 2012 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
The Premier League does not have a playoff.
Neither does La Liga, Serie A, the Bundesliga, or any number of European soccer leagues. If you finish first in the regular season, you win the league.
That said, the World Cup and the UEFA Champions League are more or less playoffs.
by Dave's Football Blog on Jan 11, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
All the European Leagues have a play off
The FA cup (of all the leagues) along with the Champions League/ Europa League. Then there is the Club world cup, but hey don’t let logic ruin your “good” argument.
Tottenham Hotspurs, Penn State, and Winthrop are the only things that made me cry in my adult life.
by Tottenham Makes Me Cry on Jan 11, 2012 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
The FA Cup is typically the third most important piece of silverware that teams with an actual shot compete for
With reservists playing for up to half the rounds in cup competitions, that’s hardly a ringing endorsement for playoffs being considered significant in the European Leagues.
Additionally, the cups are parallel and not related whatsoever to the leagues themselves as they are put on by the association running the country rather than the league itself.
You aren’t going to see the cup winners claiming they are the champions of a particular country due to winning the cup.
The Club World Cup is not taken seriously by anyone (except as a continental pissing contest) AND is contested by teams who would have won their league ~18 months previously.
Champions League has group stages and constant complaints of the inequity involved.
Europa League is another example of how they’ve added a group segment to something that formerly was a 100% knock-out competition. Also notice how they changed the name of it from the UEFA Cup to the Europa League?
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure which leagues you're referring to,
but if you’re talking about European soccer leagues, they might not have a playoff, but they do have an unambiguous way of determining the champion.
by jolly rancher on Jan 11, 2012 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
I agree but even certain cups especially the Champions League is playoff format.
by diff13 on Jan 11, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
There are two catches
1. There is constantly a large amount of debate and complaints over the number of spots in the Champions League/World Cup afforded to the ‘better’/‘richer’ countries and leagues over the small countries and leagues.
Look at how Platini was voted in to UEFA by promising to harm England and Spain’s leagues to enrich the poorer and smaller leagues in Europe.
Look at the complaints and acrimony that come from deciding how many spots in the World Cup that each continent receives.
2. In leagues, there are few enough teams that they can get a true double-round robin competition that allows for 99% of disputes to be settled on the field without resorting to playoffs.
3. Champions League has a constantly shifting bar to entry and takes place in the following season after qualification.
At one point, the only teams that qualified for the premier continental competition had to be the actual champions in their league, and now you can have the 4th (or at one point the 5th) place team in a league qualify for the ‘Champions League’
4. Both the Champions League and World Cup have a knockout format at certain stages but ALSO include a group stage designed to reduce the ‘playoff nature’ (With the European Cup once having two group stages even). I don’t think a combo knock-out/mini-league competition can really be called a playoff format.
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
How can it not be called a playoff format? Yeah its modified but in essence a playoff format is meant to take reduce the qualifying teams down to the best 2. How is that different from the Champions League or the World Cup or the Olympics? like i said its modified a little differently but its still a playoff format.
by diff13 on Jan 11, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
If you remove half the teams in a competition through a round-robin format
You cannot call the entire competition a playoff.
The World Cup and Champions League (and the Olympics in team competitions) eliminate at least half the teams in a non-playoff format.
The post-group stage period is also never called a playoff (though they do have other specific cases which they do call playoffs)
If the goal is to ‘reduce the qualifying teams down to the best 2’, the mechanisms they put in to DELAY elimination (compared to the days when they had a straight knock-out tournament) is quite telling.
Basically in order to qualify for either the World Cup or Champions League, you have to undergo a league format in which the best team(s) in the league qualify – but even once you’ve qualified, there is still a strong non-playoff influence that culls at least half of the teams.
It would be like taking the second round of March Madness and instead
of playing one game between the two teams – playing a game against the other 3 teams in your group and then putting top two teams into the sweet sixteen.
Does that sound like a playoff to you?
by kizzak on Jan 11, 2012 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
The Flaw in the Scholarship debate is
Most low income athletes, would be able to attend school for free based on need based grants, as long as they were admitted to the school.
They would already get a “free” education, and then they would have time to make supplementary income to support themselves and their families.
These athletes also miss out on the chance for professional development opportunities to position themselves for work in the real world.
You can’t look at a scholarship as “50,000 dollars” or a “free education”…you have to look at it as a net change, = (the students athletic aid) – (the aid the student forgoes to take athletic aid + the opportunity cost of wages earned while in college)
Kent State, Temple, Akron too, they can't do it like we do.
Falcons, Bobcats and Redhawks talk a lot can't back it up.
by bull_trojan on Jan 11, 2012 1:31 PM EST reply actions
Problem is
most of these athletes would not get into the schools they attend without football.
Solution: Blind admissions for everyone, including student athletes. If you cannot get into the school without the help of a football coach, then you don’t go to that school. If the quality of play suffers (it won’t, relatively speaking), then so be it.
/problem solved.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane." - W. Jennings
"Without spirits the men cannot support the fatigues of a long campaign" - Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene
thetwitter
by TheDutchWonder on Jan 11, 2012 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
The problem is their athletic abilities are part of their admissions body of work
I’m not saying I don’t agree with you. I am all for having more rigid academic standards. However, just as you wouldn’t turn away a musical performance prodigy because they have a 2.3 GPA in high school, you wouldn’t turn away a five star running back for the same offense.
There are different types of intelligences, skills and means of self mastery. While I don’t consider a sport to be on the same level as the sciences or liberal arts, I do think they deserve some weight in the admissions process.
by JayDevil on Jan 11, 2012 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Right, since most athletes are stupid. What a terrible and insulting generalization.
Follow @AlfieBCC
by Alfie Crow on Jan 11, 2012 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
this
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
The Shapiro Scandal
tops (allegedly) killing five hookers????
It’s just this sort of sensational journalism that makes me question why SBNation gives you a format.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane." - W. Jennings
"Without spirits the men cannot support the fatigues of a long campaign" - Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene
thetwitter
by TheDutchWonder on Jan 11, 2012 1:41 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I'm kidding btw
not about the hooker killings but about the addition of Bomani. It’s good to have an alternate view to the status quo.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane." - W. Jennings
"Without spirits the men cannot support the fatigues of a long campaign" - Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene
thetwitter
by TheDutchWonder on Jan 11, 2012 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
You guys do realize
that just because they get a scholarship doesn’t mean anything.
I know this is a terrible argument but please see the point, slaves were given food so they could live so does that mean they were paid fairly for the work they provided?
No it doesn’t.
So likewise a 30k scholarship, that doesn’t even cover the cost of going to college is not fair pay for the work being provided. This is a billion dollar industry. There are million dollar industry that pay their workers better.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 1:52 PM EST reply actions
thats a bad analogy to start walking down
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 2:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yea I know it is
boo me, but I hope we can be adults and just see the point I’m trying to make.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
No, if we were adults we wouldn't even go there.
@ccommand3r
by CMDR on Jan 11, 2012 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
lol
do you have a problem with the point or just the fact of the reference used, either way can’t help it if you are too sensitive.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
right
But lots of people could say they don’t make what they should versus the value of work they do. Call athletes exploited and you have room to debate, calling them slaves is false. They have the choice to be explotied (if you think so) or not. A slaves only choice in the matter is basically to be exploited or to suffer torture or death. That’s why its a bad analogy.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 2:37 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
When did I ever call them slaves?
Please re-read, you missed the point.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
whatever
if you think its a good way to go, have at it.
by Mark Mandingo on Jan 11, 2012 2:42 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
my point is never about slaves
but more about the equal pay, I hope you understand that
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
Also
there are many people that think they don’t make what they should. The ones that have a legitimate case does something about it. Which is why I suggest the the players stop playing football, do something about it. a sit in or something.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
And Further more
what kills this argument is the fact that we can find the money to pay the coaches 5 million dollars a year but for some reason can’t find money for the student athlete? Please.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 1:53 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
What would playoffs do?
The same questions would still be raised by arsonist sportswriters and deranged collegiate fans. Your team didn’t make the field of 12 (or whatever) teams in the playoff? TRAVESTY! Your team doesn’t get the seed you think it deserves and therefore loses in the first round? VILLAINY!
I agree with the author’s point about priorities, though: the NCAA ought to base every decision on what will be best for students, not mouth-breathing fans who in most cases didn’t even attend the institution whose team they support.
Fire Gilbride
by epb2102 on Jan 11, 2012 1:57 PM EST reply actions
I don't even blame deranged collegiate fan
Most of the playoff talk is started by NFL fans and NFL sportswriters. They want to change college football to be the saturday version of the NFL instead of its own niche.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
Plenty of people gripe about the NCAA tournament selection committee
but given that no seed lower than an 8 has ever won it, it’s clear that the committee has a near-100% track record of putting all teams capable of winning the championship into the tournament (along with, to their credit, many teams not capable of winning the championship yet deserving of recognition nonetheless).
The difference between #16 and #17 is far less important than the difference between #2 and #3, because #3 could always win a national title whereas #17 almost never could.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jan 12, 2012 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
Stop talking about people you don't represent
http://www.ncpanow.org/releases_advisories?id=0013
81% of players are in favor of a playoff. If the players want it, the fans want it, the athletic departments make more money off it, who is losing here? It’s nice to see Bomani, who is my favorite journalist for the record, stick up for college athletes but I think this isn’t the battle. Everyone wants it, everyone would enjoy it, so let’s make it happen BCS.
Take a non conference game out of the bore that is the first 4 weeks of the regular season if we are worried about finals or the length of the season.
by FreshPrinceofEC on Jan 11, 2012 2:37 PM EST reply actions
Those non conference games pay for the sport. And why does everyone believe playoffs equal a windfall of money anyways? Did the calander and/or American viewership change in the last year? No one watches TV between the monday before christmas until roughly the first of the year and that is the problem with the playoff talk games will have to be played in this time period but in order to get the TV money the viewership of America would have to radically change.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
You’re both missing the point of the column.
Playoff or no playoff, the larger issue of unfairness and brokenness remains.
DavidAArnott.com
@DavidAArnott
by David A. Arnott on Jan 11, 2012 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree
I actually have told pro playoff people I will start to care about the issue once the NCAA is fixed. That players receive so little compensation except for the big lie about a schoarship is issue 1. That they get hammered for selling their own stuff is issue 2. That they are not allowed representation or due process is issues 3. Actually make the last one issue 1 because it would take care of all the other issues.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
agreed
the money being made of the NCAA football game for their likeness is crazy and they get none of it
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed, but money is the motive my man. BCS wants to increase its bottom dollar, not cut into it by playing players. What if the NCAA uses half the $1.1 billion it would make in a playoff system to use as a stipend for FBS players? Kill two birds with one stone?
by FreshPrinceofEC on Jan 11, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
Your confusing entites
The BCS is just the 4 BCS bowls and D1 schools except Navy and Army. It only deals with 5 post season bowl games.
The NCAA is the body that has the rule against paying players. The rule that prevents schools from paying players was recently voted on and than vetoed. The schools in favor of paying the players where the big name “AQ” or “BCS” schools the ones basically that get the blame for everything. It was the little sister of the poor like Boise St that voted against paying players.
The AQ schools don’t care as much about increasing the bottom line based on post season as much as preventing the little sisters of the poor from taking more and more of their pie. Its the Michigans of the world that produce all of the value in the sport but the scrubs that keep taking and crying and taking and crying for some more.
And until I see a contract I don’t believe for a second there is a 1.1 billion dollar offer for a playoff or anywhere close to that. That would be about 3 times higher than the collective tv contract of the current bowls and any exec that signed off on this deal should not only be fired from ESPN but tared and feathered on his way out.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
You’re telling me people wouldn’t watch Alabama vs. OK State if it was on Dec. 27th?!? Child Please. If anything it would increase the attendance of those games. Students would be off school already and a lot of people already take off between Christmas and New Years.
by FreshPrinceofEC on Jan 11, 2012 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
No ratings tell me that
Show me real data that says these games would turn a profit. Tell me how its going to work sending 50k fans with 1 week notice from Pasadena and New Orleans to Miami. Playoff fans want to pretend there is no downside or problems but there are huge ones. Logistics alone are a huge problem. The real world is a huge problem because while its easy to take one weekend off during this time frame try taking 2 or 3 weekends off to travel around the country. Even boosters that could afford to have other obligations this time of the year.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Playoff Proposal
This is how I end up seeing it working out.
We end up getting the 4 power conferences of 16 teams. They are the new FBS and the rest of the schools will move to the FCS. The new FBS will have significant stipends in addition to scholarships for their players, where the FCS will stick with the scholarship method.
The conference championships now serve as the beginning of an 8 team playoff. The winners of each conference games are now reseeded 1-4 and go to a semifinal game. The Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl all switch off hosting the semifinal and final games.
I see your point about getting fans to the games, but that never effects march madness. Maybe you make a back to back game semifinal in one stadium? A lot to think about but I like the playoff system much better.
by FreshPrinceofEC on Jan 11, 2012 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
have to stop you after you second sentence
Super conferences are not going to happen any time soon and 4 is out of the question. There are only 3 teams anyone wants and not everyone wants all of them. OU, Texas and ND. The Big 10 and ACC will only expand if ND or Texas is a full member part. The Pac will only expand if Texas is part. The SEC had a hard enough time finding 14 and will only expand if OU or Texas is a part. The problem is not one of those 3 wants anything to do with the SEC or for that matter FSU, Va Tech, Ga Tech or Clemson the names most commonly thrown around well at least the decision makers who outside of TAM is all that matters. The Big 10 wants no part of OU. The Pac 10 only wants OU if Texas is with them.
So basically you can have 1 maybe 2 superconferences other wise its not going to happen. Say for some crazy reason OU decides to go to the SEC and brings with them there dancing partner Okie State to make the SEC a 16 team super conference. This makes Texas and ND go to the Big 10 and they bring does it matter U and who cares U. The Pac is not than going to start adding KU, KState and Iowa St. The ACC is not going to pick up Baylor.
Expansion was about growing the pie not slicing it up more ways.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Here is what I don't understand
There are two ways to get scholarships.
Academic and Athletic.
If i’m on Academic scholarship, I can work wherever I want, get money from whoever I want.
But Athletic, I can’t.
Why can’t we just have the same rules?
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 2:59 PM EST reply actions
Read
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
Post fail
Read The Shame of College Sports by Taylor Branch in the Atlantic magazine from Oct of last year. You can find it at their website but it lays out the history of the NCAA and why they are full of it.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
I know they are full of it. But we talking about paying these players, I’m just looking for a means to do so.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Jan 11, 2012 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
True
I think college football coaches are not only coaches but recruiters, and spokesman for the school. They offer these high school “KIDS” appealing incentives that give them an unfair advantage.
by giorsully on Jan 11, 2012 3:56 PM EST reply actions
I think
that college football needs a playoff and to treat it’s players better.
If you don’t have a playoff, you have 85 million meaningless bowl games. What if a star player has a permanent injury in the Kraft Fight Hunger bowl just so the school can get millions of dollars?
Meaningless bowl games are part of how the players are exploited.
by PABroncofan on Jan 11, 2012 4:52 PM EST reply actions
star players
typically have insurance contracts that allow them to be compensated if something like that happens.
Bowl games aren’t meaningless to players – they get to take a trip, typically to a nice place (not every place is appealing to everyone obviously), they get some swag, and I believe most players like going to bowl games (go look up whatever survey).
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Follow @cornnation Twitter
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on Jan 11, 2012 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
The surveys that show 85 percent or what ever want a playoff are 100 percent of the players from teams that will never ever see the playoffs and just want less wear tear and exploiting of their bodies.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Jan 11, 2012 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Why does a playoff exclude bowls?
Teams that don’t make the playoffs can still be bowls, or the playoffs can even take place in bowl games.
Smaller points aside, the playoffs issue should be able to handle while larger issues are addressed. And fans generally care about the product, not how its made. I mean we see bowl games, but we don’t see players being treated wrongly often. I guess I believe visibility is an issue, and the media can be partly blamed there.
Ryan Miller was the true MVP. See my profile for rant.
by Jsz on Jan 11, 2012 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
Put 'em on blast, Bomani!
Well said, although your point gets a touch diffused by the end. There’s enough material here for a bunch of different columns: the corruption of the BCS, the problems with the bowl system in general, the problems inherent to a playoff system, the financial corruption of the NCAA (and, separately, it’s failure to live up to its mission statement), the exploitation of athletes (and students, and youth in general), the almighty dollar running roughshod over basic humanity, (bread and) circuses being the new opiate of the masses, the complicity of consumers and the press in all of the above.
The exploitation is absolutely present, and it’s amazing that there are people trying to deny it. “They get a scholarship” is not a sufficient argument otherwise.
Compare, say, a violin prodigy to a football prodigy. If the violinist wants to take an alternate path to mastery of her craft, she may forgo a college scholarship and do so. The football player has no such choice; the NCAA has a monopoly (on opportunities to hone skills for 18-22 year-olds) and charges accordingly (the stories of violin scholarship students dying of dehydration during August two-a-days are few and far between).
More is asked of athletes, more (profit) is gleaned from them, and more compensation is thus due them.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Jan 12, 2012 11:31 AM EST reply actions
I'm just waiting for Cuban to set up a paid development program
I remember he proposed such a thing for basketball players, but couldn’t get involved because he owns the Mavs.
Pay some coaches, and S&C personnel. Pay the top caliber players $50-100k/yr out of high school. Train them full time for 3 years. Once they’re drafted, the school gets a slice of their salary.
Scouting at 18 years old isn’t a certainty, but I’m sure there is a way to model it to get the economics to work.
by JayDevil on Jan 13, 2012 9:40 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed