2010 NCAA football thread....

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by habernac

Former agent Josh Luchs details money paid to college players from back when he was an agent.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shu...urn=nfl-276421

I don't watch college football, but I know how popular it is. I think it's a crime that the athletes don't get any of the $$$$$ this rakes in for the colleges and the NCAA. Pay them and this problem goes away.

Yeah it's such a shame...

Maybe that free education and room and board are just not enough....

Most of these kids are using football as a means to get an education. Some of the top talent are using the school to get to the next level. Shame on the school for putting prices on tickets...

[habernac]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Yeah it's such a shame...

Maybe that free education and room and board are just not enough....

Most of these kids are using football as a means to get an education. Some of the top talent are using the school to get to the next level. Shame on the school for putting prices on tickets...

No, it isn't enough. Not when the schools are making boatloads of cash.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

This could be interesting...

Death to the BCS



As a fan of an SEC team, you can imagine I'm not much into book learnin', but I may have to pick this one up.

It really doesn't look like it adds anything to conversation. Here's a pretty extensive write-up on the book with a response from the writer at the end:
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/10/1...ogy/?eref=sihp

I find it hilarious that after all that "research", the best the writers could come up with is a 16-team playoff where all 11 conference winners make the playoffs. Clearly there's issues with the BCS, but moving to a system where East Carolina, Troy, and Central Michigan and the like make the playoffs every year isn't exactly a step forward. I've read a lot of playoff proposals (and have seen this one many, many times) and this is one of the worst ones. If tomorrow this system was put in place, I guarantee you'd see a mass backing out of strong non-conference games for 2012 and beyond by major programs and mediocre BCS conference teams without a major historical conference tie (Louisville, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) scrambling to join the C-USA, Sun Belt, etc. to get an easy playoff bid.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by habernac

No, it isn't enough. Not when the schools are making boatloads of cash.

Yeah that pay for other programs like Womens basketball, Soccer, and other sports that have dozens of fans at it's event.

I can't remember exactly but something like only 15 universities made money in their athletic department last year....

So your boat loads of money goes towards scholarships for other sports other than football. I'm pretty sure the Alabama Rowing team is just rowing in the money on it's boat aren't they?

Money that the school gets from athletics goes for everything in the school not just it's athletic budget.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by habernac

No, it isn't enough. Not when the schools are making boatloads of cash.

As PIM already said, schools simply aren't making boatloads of cash.

Start paying football players and say goodbye to every other sport at the school, unless those athletes find a way to pay for it themselves. Football, and to a lesser extent men's basketball, finance entire athletic departments and make it financially possible for those other teams to exist.

Here's another question for you, how does this work at a place like Duke? The football team draws flies (relatively) and is most likely not profitable, while the basketball team is the hottest ticket in town and almost certainly profitable. Do Duke football players get paid? Duke Basketball players? What about hockey players at a school where that sport turns a profit? Is that how this works, your sport turns a profit so you get paid?

[habernac]

Well, I guess the problem of having agents and boosters give the players money will continue then.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is that how this works, your sport turns a profit so you get paid?

Hmmmm . . . . sounds like . . . . capitalism!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by habernac

Well, I guess the problem of having agents and boosters give the players money will continue then.

Yes, it will. To think otherwise would be naive. It's a relaity that is shared by many different areas of the world, if there's the possibility to make lots of money there will be a certain degree of corruption.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

Hmmmm . . . . sounds like . . . . capitalism!

True, which brings me back to my first point. Pay college players and you're competing with the NFL. So long college football.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by habernac

Well, I guess the problem of having agents and boosters give the players money will continue then.

Pretty much, the reason is because most of the top notch talent doesn't come from affluent areas. Most of these kids had to live on scraps and this is a way for them to live a little better.

there was a report out a couple of weeks or maybe a couple of months ago about how many schools actually turned a profit with the athletic department. It was a small amount and I think it was only 15 schools.

Duke isn't that big of a deal in athletics because Duke is a Private school. Academics come first at Duke. Vanderbilt is being bashed all the time about not spending money on football and not relaxing its academic standers for players but like Duke they are a Private school and can care less about sports.

the guys that you see getting drafted most of the time and I would be willing to bet its a staggering number don't care about their educations at the school they are attending.

I'm running into a situation down here in Alabama where people are coming to University of Alabama because of the football team and the school doesn't really have a strong department in the major that they are seeking.

Athletics play a big part in public schools. Like here at BAMA the enrollment has went through the roof in the last 5 years went from 18k or so to 32k students.

Go to any other Athletic even at bama and you will have plenty of room to stretch out and relax. Now talk about taking football away and your dead. They would let the Yankees come down again and torch the whole town and university like they did in the civil war, while all the fans line up around the stadium with their guns and pitchforks killing anyone that comes near the stadium.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

As PIM already said, schools simply aren't making boatloads of cash.

Im sure some dont, but most do.

The more salient fact is in conferences that automatically qualify for the BCS, 61 of 66 programs made money on football. The average take was $8.8 million.

The Longhorns' football program amassed a whopping $87.5 million in gross revenue during the 2008-09 school year and the football program cleared a $65 million profit, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics. The 2008-09 school year is the most recent data that is available.

Following Texas and Ohio State in football gross revenue are four SEC schools -- Florida ($66.15 million), Georgia ($65.21 million), Alabama ($64.6 million) and LSU ($61.86 million). Penn State ($61.76 million) ranks seventh, with Auburn ($58.61 million), South Carolina ($57.11 million) and Notre Dame ($56.92 million) rounding out the top 10.

They make a lot of money at most schools, though i still am not convinced that players should get paid. I mean the scholarship athletes must be getting close to 20 grand or so each year alone in tuition, food, supllies etc. (complete guess on my part)...so that would have to be factored in as well.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im sure some dont, but most do.







They make a lot of money at most schools, though i still am not convinced that players should get paid. I mean the scholarship athletes must be getting close to 20 grand or so each year alone in tuition, food, supllies etc. (complete guess on my part)...so that would have to be factored in as well.

You misunderstood, I was discussing athletic departments, not football programs.

$20,000 is waaaaaay below what a full scholarship athlete would take in. Tuition alone runs into the $40,000+ range at many schools. Only in state atheltes at public schools would be below $20,000 in tuition expenses at the vast majority of schools.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im sure some dont, but most do.







They make a lot of money at most schools, though i still am not convinced that players should get paid. I mean the scholarship athletes must be getting close to 20 grand or so each year alone in tuition, food, supllies etc. (complete guess on my part)...so that would have to be factored in as well.

I understand your point, but you looked at what the Football program brought in for profit. Now search and find the deficit that the rest of the athletic department is in.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by valo403

You misunderstood, I was discussing athletic departments, not football programs.

$20,000 is waaaaaay below what a full scholarship athlete would take in. Tuition alone runs into the $40,000+ range at many schools. Only in state atheltes at public schools would be below $20,000 in tuition expenses at the vast majority of schools.

A friend of mine was a scholarship athlete (baseball) at a small school here in Tuscaloosa. His tuition was 24k a year, he had to have Tommy Johns surgery and was done playing baseball for the college but he did get his degree last spring.

This was at a small college too, think if you're at a big time school.

[transplant99]

yup......i did incorrectly look at just football briefly.

here is the website where you can compare it all.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

[PIMking]

link no worky

[transplant99]

does for me...hmm...anyhow just google... U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why would he have been fired? He won bowl games and lost bowl games and never got canned, and in the proposed PO system I have seen written about in places, the bowl games are still there as PART of the PO system and as such there wouldn't be any difference on why you get fired or not.

I have no idea why he wasn't gone a LONG time ago, but there is nothing to suggest that PO system would have accelerated that happening.

There's a big difference between winning one bowl game per year and having to win 3 or 4 playoffs games year after year with high expectations.
Bowl games really aren't that serious, you never choke when you lose The Cheeseball Nut Bowl. You lose quarterfinals and semifinals and it starts to take it's toll.

The playoff argument would be that the pressure to win playoff games and constant failure to do so, would force teams to hire newer and better coaches.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There's a big difference between winning one bowl game per year and having to win 3 or 4 playoffs games year after year with high expectations.
Bowl games really aren't that serious, you never choke when you lose The Cheeseball Nut Bowl. You lose quarterfinals and semifinals and it starts to take it's toll.

The playoff argument would be that the pressure to win playoff games and constant failure to do so, would force teams to hire newer and better coaches.

I completely disagree. Bowl games are very serious, especially for teams ranked near the top. A dismal Bowl record will cost coaches their jobs.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

I completely disagree. Bowl games are very serious, especially for teams ranked near the top. A dismal Bowl record will cost coaches their jobs.

A dismal bowl record over how many years? I find most Bowl games outside of the big BCS to be more like celebrations!

In playoffs, it's pressure from Round 1.