2013 NCAA Football Thread

[JollyRoger]

NCAA rules have been crazy for a long time. I was good enough to be in the top 5 on my college cross country team, but not good enough for an athletic scholarship (given the extreme scholarship limits for the sport). I did get an academic scholarship and it took a ton of paperwork and half a missed season for me to be allowed to run without counting against the scholarship limit. All of this for a marginal athlete on the worst team in the conference in a marginal sport. A true STUDENT-athlete. Then I got a job. More paperwork.

 

[Chromehound]

It'll sure break my heart if Manziel gets suspended

Anyone actually see the real story yet? Figured it was some idiot that gave him a dollar or something and is now reporting it to NCAA.....not that I mind.

 

[ummmm........]

Because paying those players will blow up their budgets when they also have to start paying women's volleyball.

But there are athletic departments that can afford it, and want to pay it. Keeping them in the same division as the departments that can't doesn't make sense. If you look at the revenues CFB was generating the last time the divisions were restructured -- when D-I was separated into DI-A and DI-AA -- and the revenues being generated now, I'd say we're overdue for another adjustment . . .

I would say let players get money from outside sourses on the open market.

Like everything else.

It makes sense, just like it makes sense to pay the players directly. But things would get real slimy real fast, with boosters paying HS seniors $10K for an autograph if they commit to their program, etc. . .

It'll sure break my heart if Manziel gets suspended

Anyone actually see the real story yet? Figured it was some idiot that gave him a dollar or something and is now reporting it to NCAA.....not that I mind.

Well, yeah. I mean, it's a developing story but it's not like it's hard to find. It's actually kind of hard to avoid. I just don't see why any of these brokers would volunteer info to the NCAA. No college player would ever deal with them again.

And I'm hoping they don't. It would deprive CFB fans of a marquee game, and it would deprive Alabama fans of our opportunity for revenge

EDIT: Oh, the hypocrisy. That's a nice little article summing up Jay Bilas' tweets from today . . .

 

[mrt144]

As much as i love the rivalry of college football, the whole money situation is now impacting games all the time and its getting in the way of my enjoyment.

 

[ummmm........]

As much as i love the rivalry of college football, the whole money situation is now impacting games all the time and its getting in the way of my enjoyment.

Yeah, that's always the problem. It is the greatest sport, but it's morally indefensible. One of the things I wonder about is how much of the interest would wane if the players were given their due, i.e., paid for their contributions, allowed to transfer, given free reign on the secondary market, etc.

I don't think I'd watch much college football if the players were given everything I think they are entitled to, because at that point they'd be an NFL minor league, and I don't watch many NFL games

 

[downtown]

But there are athletic departments that can afford it, and want to pay it. Keeping them in the same division as the departments that can't doesn't make sense. If you look at the revenues CFB was generating the last time the divisions were restructured -- when D-I was separated into DI-A and DI-AA -- and the revenues being generated now, I'd say we're overdue for another adjustment . . .

No, they really can't, at least in any meaningful sense.

This isn't a totally free market like it is for professional baseball. If universities pay football players a flat rate, the best players are still being dramatically under compensated for their participation. Somebody like Clowney, compared to what he could get if he could declare right now, could probably sign a 3 Million dollar deal. Paying him 6 grand or whatever would still be ethically cheap, and there would be still be problems.

On the other hand, the backup tackle at Kentucky is probably being over compensated *right now*, given the value of his degree, board, medical care and professional training, relative to the value he brings.

If we decide to pay "market wages" relative to how good the player is, a school would have to MATCH THAT SPENDING on women's sports, which makes zero budget sense, since maybe a dozen women's sports...period, turn anything close to a profit. Not even Alabama is willing to spend millions of dollars on salaries for volleyball players. In an era of budget austerity, there would be a riot in the statehouse, if not the state itself.

If a school tried to get around the rule by dropping nearly all of their women's sports (or men's sports), the Federal Govt would get involved. Delany alluded to this at B1G Media Days.

Listen, the endgame for this entire situation isn't going to be in the NCAA boardroom, and it isn't just in an administrative shift to a "D4" orwhatever. It's going to happen in the court room (and the NCAA is prepared to take O'Bannon to the Supreme Court, according to Delany), and it's going to happen in Congress, because the current interpretation of Title IX is perhaps a bigger driving force to what happens with player budgets than anything else.

It makes sense, just like it makes sense to pay the players directly. But things would get real slimy real fast, with boosters paying HS seniors $10K for an autograph if they commit to their program, etc. . .

Yes, that is the alternative to having the schools do it, and quite frankly, even that might not survive a legal challenge.

 

[MacAttack]

I have a giant rant on this subject that I will spare all of you from and just cut right to it. I do not see any problem at all for current college players (of any sport) if they received an endorsement deal from say nike/adidas/BMW. Not have schools pay salaries, but allow the athletes to profit from their fame that was hard earned on the field. They should be able to profit from their likeness, just like everybody else is. I have no issue with seeing Manziel's face on the landing page of adidas.com next to Messi's. I have no issue with seeing De'Anthony Thomas sporting athletic gear in a Nike commercial or Clowney driving a BMW through Spartanburg, SC promoting the latest model. Just because an OSU volleyball player won't get the same endorsement deal as say Braxton Miller, I do not think that would violate Title IX.

Besides, if you really analyze the rules, technically, our student-athletes participating in the Summer and Winter Olympics, is a violation. Yet the NCAA turns a blind eye. Why? Because who cares about the Aggie swimmer from Tonga or the Florida runner representing the Bahamas, right?

 

[mrt144]

Yeah, that's always the problem. It is the greatest sport, but it's morally indefensible. One of the things I wonder about is how much of the interest would wane if the players were given their due, i.e., paid for their contributions, allowed to transfer, given free reign on the secondary market, etc.

I don't think I'd watch much college football if the players were given everything I think they are entitled to, because at that point they'd be an NFL minor league, and I don't watch many NFL games

I'd hate to see college football as a minor league for the NFL, but I'd take less stupid infractions that keep players out and mess up entire seasons. College football is still a game where individual talents can tilt entire seasons.

 

[downtown]

I have a giant rant on this subject that I will spare all of you from and just cut right to it. I do not see any problem at all for current college players (of any sport) if they received an endorsement deal from say nike/adidas/BMW. Not have schools pay salaries, but allow the athletes to profit from their fame that was hard earned on the field. They should be able to profit from their likeness, just like everybody else is. I have no issue with seeing Manziel's face on the landing page of adidas.com next to Messi's. I have no issue with seeing De'Anthony Thomas sporting athletic gear in a Nike commercial or Clowney driving a BMW through Spartanburg, SC promoting the latest model. Just because an OSU volleyball player won't get the same endorsement deal as say Braxton Miller, I do not think that would violate Title IX.

That's all possible I suppose, but none of that does anything to address the mounds of pending litigation towards the NCAA. By statute, we're either going to have something very similar to the status quo (which a divisional change having to do with matters beyond paying players), or one way or another, the NCAA will be forced to directly compensate student athletes, or congress is going to step in. I don't believe the NCAA can get the lawyers off their back by punting to Adidas.

Besides, if you really analyze the rules, technically, our student-athletes participating in the Summer and Winter Olympics, is a violation. Yet the NCAA turns a blind eye. Why? Because who cares about the Aggie swimmer from Tonga or the Florida runner representing the Bahamas, right?

No it isn't, there are built in exceptions.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Besides, if you really analyze the rules, technically, our student-athletes participating in the Summer and Winter Olympics, is a violation. Yet the NCAA turns a blind eye. Why? Because who cares about the Aggie swimmer from Tonga or the Florida runner representing the Bahamas, right?

I think you also point to a larger issue regarding international athletes wrongly (and most likely unknowingly) benefiting from the systematic and purposeful abuses of the current system in place. I took a History of Collegiate Athletics class my 3rd year at university, and one of the issues we looked at while we were wrapping up the course was the issue of international athletes. The issue mostly happens in women's and men's volleyball, IIRC Lewis University won the 2003 national championship (NCAA classifies men's volleyball as DI-II for one national title) and were stripped of the title because the coach recruited professional players from Europe. Needless to say, the coach was blackballed and is never allowed to work for any college in any volleyball position ever again.

 

[ummmm........]

No, they really can't, at least in any meaningful sense.

I'm not arguing that they can afford to pay everyone what they're worth, and yes, I do realize that the law doesn't allow them to.

But that doesn't change the fact that some schools want to pay something, and can afford to, while others don't and can't. The FBS schools aren't enough alike to all stay in the same division any more.

In other news, here are the top three headlines from CBSSports.com's college football site:

eBay user selling Clowney, Manziel, Bridgewater signed items
USC, Marqise Lee say WR wasn't paid for signed photos
CFB playoff opens bidding for 2016, '17 championship games

Oh, sweet irony . . .

 

[mrt144]

Are some people really against paying players because of some desire to retain conferences?

I for one love the gimme games in the big 10, but in a conversation where rich schools pay players, our rival will be there.

 

[ummmm........]

The issue is that some schools can afford to pay the players more than they are allowed to, and they would like to be able to do so. When put to a vote, these measures fail to pass. So the schools that are generating the revenue would like to see changes that would result in them having more say over what they can and can't do. The most drastic form this could take would be breaking from the NCAA entirely. The least disruptive would be giving the 'power' schools an easier path to passing the rules they want. A solution between those two options would be creating a new division and moving the power schools into it and leaving the lesser schools in the current FBS. Some people also want this new division for the sake of competition. They want a new division with only power schools that only play each other. So there are a lot of moving parts . . .

 

[downtown]

The issue is that some schools can afford to pay the players more than they are allowed to, and they would like to be able to do so.

Kinda, I mean, there is a reason the NCAA is fighting O'Bannon tooth and nail. Nobody wants to really pay the players. The larger schools in FBS D1 would like to increase athletic spending generally. The frustration with the Big 5 and the NCAA actually extends to a lot lot of other issues besides this (especially with recruiting).

Some people also want this new division for the sake of competition. They want a new division with only power schools that only play each other. So there are a lot of moving parts . . .

None of those people are administrators. Texas, Alabama, Ohio State etc need to continue to play the Ohios, the Texas States, even the Western Carolinas, because "big schools" need to play 7 or 8 home games a year to meet their AD (or community) budget requirements. They cannot afford to only have 6 home games, even if they're all against great teams. Nobody wants to really stop playing the small schools. They just want more administrative control.

 

[ummmm........]

Oh, they'd be fine. Increased tv money would more than make up for it . . .

In other news, Bilas wins . . .

 

[downtown]

Oh, they'd be fine. Increased tv money would more than make up for it . . .

That's possible, but I highly doubt it. I've had two D1 football coaches, 1 D1 AD, and 1 AD staffer personally tell me that they can't beat their budget requirements if they play less than 7 home games a season.

A big reason is the political pressure from the community. Big TV money doesn't pay for hotels, takeout, or jersey sales within the actual town. Even in a big, multidisciplinary city like Columbus, Buckeye football is a major economic engine for half of the city during the fall, and for smaller college towns, it's absolutely vital. Mayors, City Council Members, or State Legislators, would place a ton of political pressure on public universities.

TV money is also split up differently than gate money, it really isn't an indefinite cash cow.

Now, if Title 9 and O'Bannon mean that schools have to essentially drop every other sport they offer besides football and women's hoops, then maybe this would work.

 

[MacAttack]

With how MLS and MLB conducts business, they wouldn't shed a tear.

I was wondering what you would do if you were Kevin Sumlin? note: please attempt to keep any anti Johnny or anti Aggie biases aside.

Would you play Johnny Football vs Rice and Sam Houston State if the NCAA drags their investigation on through September?

If you want to include an explanation, that's encouraged.

I am not giving my opinion just yet because I do not want to influence this "poll" right out of the gate.

 

[ummmm........]

I was wondering what you would do if you were Kevin Sumlin? note: please attempt to keep any anti Johnny or anti Aggie biases aside.

Would you play Johnny Football vs Rice and Sam Houston State if the NCAA drags their investigation on through September?

If you want to include an explanation, that's encouraged.

I am not giving my opinion just yet because I do not want to influence this "poll" right out of the gate.

Okay, so it seems pretty obvious that Manziel took money to sign autographs.

First off, note how deeply broken the college football model is when it makes an issue of this.

Second, without subpoena power, there is a good chance that the NCAA will never be able to prove this happened.

So, if the investigation drags on into the season, what should A&M do? If they play him and he's later ruled ineligible, they will have to vacate any wins he played in, but why would they care, really? He's a talented enough player that his presence or absence will affect the W/L record and fan interest in the program, and games won on the field are what matter, regardless of what the NCAA's records say.

I'd say play him, right? It's not like he cheated, he's just profiting from his fame, which he should be allowed to do anyway . . .

I haven't seen anything since that would cause to change my opinion. The only risk to playing him is becoming a target of a vengeful NCAA . . .

EDIT: I've been thinking about it, and really that answer is from the perspective of an Alabama fan -- I want Manziel playing against us for purely selfish reasons. And I think it's probably the same answer I would give if we were talking about Ohio State or Cal or some other team I don't have any interest in one way or the other, because my interest there would be in seeing the best game possible and I wouldn't care about any potential fallout.

But if Manziel were an Alabama player I might want to sit him, because if we play him and we win we don't just run the risk of irritating the NCAA but then I've got to listen to all the SEC haters talking about how we can't win without cheating -- though, as I've said, I don't really think of what he did as cheating. If we play him and we don't win, then that's even worse because we lost the game and our integrity.

So I'm sticking with my original answer as my personal answer, but if I was an A&M fan or if Manziel played for Alabama, I might answer differently . . .

 

[ummmm........]

Vandy kids charged with rape . . .

Marqise Lee leaves practice with a shoulder injury . . .

Phil Fulmer wants on the playoff committee . . .

And yearbook photos of several former and current FBS coaches . . .

20 days to kickoff, 22 till Alabama/VaTech . . .

 

[ummmm........]

Lee's injury is just a bone bruise, so Kiffin and USC breathe a huge sigh of relief . . .

Alabama scrimmage notes:

McCarron and the receivers have a huge HUGE day . . .

But 1st CB Belue was held out with a hammy . . .

O-line gets poor push on run plays. Like any scrimmage stat, that can be read either way . . .

Uber-freshman Amari Cooper placed first among all players in summer conditioning. That says something to me because he's among the top maybe five guys on the team as far as job security, and he still busted hump in the offseason. Coming second was Sunseri, who uses football smarts to play fast at a position where we have more physically gifted athletes available, just for comparison's sake . . .

In a similar vein, Saban ended today's presser with a bit on special teams, about how important they are and how when he was in Cleveland he kept a guy on the roster as his 9th DB just because he was the best special teams player in the league. The point was how hard it is to get guys to commit and go 100% on special teams, and how it was something they have to learn transitioning from HS to FBS, like a RB learning to pass block. Then he ended with "I don't think many of our young 'uns got their five stars and four stars by how they played on special teams, so it's something that's got to be sold to them." You can tell he really enjoyed saying it . . .