[rachaldenise]

http://rivals.yahoo....rn=ncaaf-257376

[NFLDiva]

The first respectable thing he's done in a long time. I completely agree with what he said.

[Zimpel Man]

NFLDiva, on 22 July 2010 - 07:10 AM, said:

The first respectable thing he's done in a long time. I completely agree with what he said.

He's ignoring one little detail. If it wasn't for the NFL making college football a de facto training program, million dollar coaches' salaries wouldn't exist. Does anyone honestly think that college football would be as popular and the money maker it is now if all the players went on to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, real estate agents, and such?

Oh, he's reaping the benefits of the system, and biting the hand that indirectly feeds him.

Although I do like the idea of suspending agents. Don't think it would hold up in the courts and would possibly jeopardize the League's antitrust exemption, though.

What caught my eye is "It's not my fault".

[NFLDiva]

I don't have the strength to argue that with you

You're right, but I still agree with what he said. Although my agreeing with him doesn't mean I don't think that there are not others to blame, because there is a long list of responsible parties.

[Zimpel Man]

NFLDiva, on 22 July 2010 - 01:27 PM, said:

I don't have the strength to argue that with you

You're right, but I still agree with what he said. Although my agreeing with him doesn't mean I don't think that there are not others to blame, because there is a long list of responsible parties.

I generally agree with him, too, but his argument became hollow with the "It's not my fault" argument. Ignore the man behind the curtain. That, and "Yes I am, but what about you?".....Deflection at its finest.

[rabbdogg]

you could get rid of the problem if you pay the atheletes a couple thousand dollars out of the millions they make the NCAA, then there would be "no need" for them to take any money or gifts from agents or alumni....because it's "billed" as amatuer sports, but the ones that make all the money..football and basketball are really semi-pro...but hey why do what's right

[Zimpel Man]

rabbdogg, on 22 July 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

you could get rid of the problem if you pay the atheletes a couple thousand dollars out of the millions they make the NCAA, then there would be "no need" for them to take any money or gifts from agents or alumni....because it's "billed" as amatuer sports, but the ones that make all the money..football and basketball are really semi-pro...but hey why do what's right

You're right. Tulane should take away the 40K per year scholarships and free room and board and medical care and go ahead and pay them. Make it right.

[WhoDat205]

Zimpel Man, on 23 July 2010 - 06:49 AM, said:

rabbdogg, on 22 July 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

you could get rid of the problem if you pay the atheletes a couple thousand dollars out of the millions they make the NCAA, then there would be "no need" for them to take any money or gifts from agents or alumni....because it's "billed" as amatuer sports, but the ones that make all the money..football and basketball are really semi-pro...but hey why do what's right

You're right. Tulane should take away the 40K per year scholarships and free room and board and medical care and go ahead and pay them. Make it right.

Unfortunately, Tulane (along with my beloved Southern Miss) are in that second tier of D1 where they aren't filling up 80K+ seat stadia and signing billon dollar TV deals. Try to sub Tulane with LSU and see how sarcastic that post sounds.

I keep wondering when the NFL and NBA are going to adopt the MLB's model with farm systems plucking kids straight out of HS. It would be a bummer because I love college football and would hate to see it the pale shadow of itself that college baseball is, but it's hard to argue that that system wouldn't make the most economic sense for all parties involved (not including the NCAA, of course).

[WhoDat]

Yeah, I'm with Diva on this one. Look at what Reggie just did to USC. Saban biting the hand that feeds him? I'm not so sure about that. College Football was a pretty big deal well before the NFL, and well before huge NFL salaries. The things making the schools money are the TV contracts and advertising related to the Bowls. The idea that the (potentially) great high school players won't go play in college if they didn't have an NFL pay day to look forward to seems to me to be unsupported. And what does a guy like Saban (or Carroll at USC) do? They can't possibly police every player. One guy can screw it up for an entire university, and there are guys looking to do just that.

I ultimately question the strength of the underlying no contact rule. It is founded on the idea that a University's primary goal is to educate. That seems pretty straight forward, but recast in another light, it makes the rule seem pretty dumb. If you say, for example, that a University's primary goal is to prepare a student for his or her chosen carer, then why would hiring an agent be a bad idea?

[NFLDiva]

I don't think what these agents or players are doing is right, but here is a question I can't get out of my head... How do these "benefits" make someone a better or worse player on the field?

I think USC taking down all hint of Reggie Bush from their "hall of fame" was wrong. Whether he or his parents received any money or benefits or whatever, what does that have to do with his play, or any other players game for that matter?

Again, I don't think its right, but this stripping of awards and such isn't right either.

[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat205, on 23 July 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 23 July 2010 - 06:49 AM, said:

rabbdogg, on 22 July 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

you could get rid of the problem if you pay the atheletes a couple thousand dollars out of the millions they make the NCAA, then there would be "no need" for them to take any money or gifts from agents or alumni....because it's "billed" as amatuer sports, but the ones that make all the money..football and basketball are really semi-pro...but hey why do what's right

You're right. Tulane should take away the 40K per year scholarships and free room and board and medical care and go ahead and pay them. Make it right.

Unfortunately, Tulane (along with my beloved Southern Miss) are in that second tier of D1 where they aren't filling up 80K+ seat stadia and signing billon dollar TV deals. Try to sub Tulane with LSU and see how sarcastic that post sounds.

I keep wondering when the NFL and NBA are going to adopt the MLB's model with farm systems plucking kids straight out of HS. It would be a bummer because I love college football and would hate to see it the pale shadow of itself that college baseball is, but it's hard to argue that that system wouldn't make the most economic sense for all parties involved (not including the NCAA, of course).

When you substitute LSU, you are substituting the exception, not the norm. Are people suggesting the system be changed because a very small proportion of schools make incredible amounts of money? The overwhelming majority, including FCS and D-II would scream bloody murder if they had to pay their scholarship athletes.

WhoDat, on 23 July 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm with Diva on this one. Look at what Reggie just did to USC. Saban biting the hand that feeds him? I'm not so sure about that. College Football was a pretty big deal well before the NFL, and well before huge NFL salaries. The things making the schools money are the TV contracts and advertising related to the Bowls. The idea that the (potentially) great high school players won't go play in college if they didn't have an NFL pay day to look forward to seems to me to be unsupported. And what does a guy like Saban (or Carroll at USC) do? They can't possibly police every player. One guy can screw it up for an entire university, and there are guys looking to do just that.

I ultimately question the strength of the underlying no contact rule. It is founded on the idea that a University's primary goal is to educate. That seems pretty straight forward, but recast in another light, it makes the rule seem pretty dumb. If you say, for example, that a University's primary goal is to prepare a student for his or her chosen carer, then why would hiring an agent be a bad idea?

The agents would love that, given the extremely small percentage of college athletes that actually go on to a career in the pros. It would come to the point that the agents would be deciding who goes to the pros based on perceived profitability instead of the teams based on talent.

[WhoDat205]

Zimpel Man, on 23 July 2010 - 11:31 AM, said:

WhoDat205, on 23 July 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 23 July 2010 - 06:49 AM, said:

rabbdogg, on 22 July 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

you could get rid of the problem if you pay the atheletes a couple thousand dollars out of the millions they make the NCAA, then there would be "no need" for them to take any money or gifts from agents or alumni....because it's "billed" as amatuer sports, but the ones that make all the money..football and basketball are really semi-pro...but hey why do what's right

You're right. Tulane should take away the 40K per year scholarships and free room and board and medical care and go ahead and pay them. Make it right.

Unfortunately, Tulane (along with my beloved Southern Miss) are in that second tier of D1 where they aren't filling up 80K+ seat stadia and signing billon dollar TV deals. Try to sub Tulane with LSU and see how sarcastic that post sounds.

I keep wondering when the NFL and NBA are going to adopt the MLB's model with farm systems plucking kids straight out of HS. It would be a bummer because I love college football and would hate to see it the pale shadow of itself that college baseball is, but it's hard to argue that that system wouldn't make the most economic sense for all parties involved (not including the NCAA, of course).

When you substitute LSU, you are substituting the exception, not the norm. Are people suggesting the system be changed because a very small proportion of schools make incredible amounts of money? The overwhelming majority, including FCS and D-II would scream bloody murder if they had to pay their scholarship athletes.

Yeah, but we're talking about the exception. I don't remember hearing about agents taking Tulane players to Miami for crazy parties.

but I'm not saying colleges should have to pay players. That's a terrible can of worms to open up. But I am saying that the NCAA shouldn't be the only real path to the NFL or NBA. It's indentured servitude. If I was a 18 year old phenom, I'd much rather get paid than get a "free" "education". If I was a marginally talented 18 year old football player, then college it is.

[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat205, on 23 July 2010 - 01:34 PM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 23 July 2010 - 11:31 AM, said:

WhoDat205, on 23 July 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

Zimpel Man, on 23 July 2010 - 06:49 AM, said:

rabbdogg, on 22 July 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

you could get rid of the problem if you pay the atheletes a couple thousand dollars out of the millions they make the NCAA, then there would be "no need" for them to take any money or gifts from agents or alumni....because it's "billed" as amatuer sports, but the ones that make all the money..football and basketball are really semi-pro...but hey why do what's right

You're right. Tulane should take away the 40K per year scholarships and free room and board and medical care and go ahead and pay them. Make it right.

Unfortunately, Tulane (along with my beloved Southern Miss) are in that second tier of D1 where they aren't filling up 80K+ seat stadia and signing billon dollar TV deals. Try to sub Tulane with LSU and see how sarcastic that post sounds.

I keep wondering when the NFL and NBA are going to adopt the MLB's model with farm systems plucking kids straight out of HS. It would be a bummer because I love college football and would hate to see it the pale shadow of itself that college baseball is, but it's hard to argue that that system wouldn't make the most economic sense for all parties involved (not including the NCAA, of course).

When you substitute LSU, you are substituting the exception, not the norm. Are people suggesting the system be changed because a very small proportion of schools make incredible amounts of money? The overwhelming majority, including FCS and D-II would scream bloody murder if they had to pay their scholarship athletes.

Yeah, but we're talking about the exception. I don't remember hearing about agents taking Tulane players to Miami for crazy parties.

but I'm not saying colleges should have to pay players. That's a terrible can of worms to open up. But I am saying that the NCAA shouldn't be the only real path to the NFL or NBA. It's indentured servitude. If I was a 18 year old phenom, I'd much rather get paid than get a "free" "education". If I was a marginally talented 18 year old football player, then college it is.

Yeah, but Tulane tends to send first rounders from time to time and a number of very effective starters otherwise (you'd be suprised who went to Tulane and is playing in the league), as do a lot of schools that struggle to make ends meet. But your "invitation" example echoes what I just said about the role agents would play. Are these kids any more than middle round picks aside from the agents saying they should be?

How many "marginally" talented 18 year olds went on to become stars in the NFL? So that's when the decision about who is going to the NFL should be made? The fact remains that football is at the schools because the schools are there, not the other way around. The argument is starting to sound like the schools wouldn't survive except for the money that football brings in (except I think I've heard things like the athletic program at LSU gets the money--the school doesn't get it). If anything, athletic programs are a DRAIN on resources at the overwhelming majority of schools.

[WhoDat205]

Quote

Yeah, but Tulane tends to send first rounders from time to time and a number of very effective starters otherwise (you'd be suprised who went to Tulane and is playing in the league), as do a lot of schools that struggle to make ends meet. But your "invitation" example echoes what I just said about the role agents would play. Are these kids any more than middle round picks aside from the agents saying they should be?

How many "marginally" talented 18 year olds went on to become stars in the NFL? So that's when the decision about who is going to the NFL should be made? The fact remains that football is at the schools because the schools are there, not the other way around. The argument is starting to sound like the schools wouldn't survive except for the money that football brings in (except I think I've heard things like the athletic program at LSU gets the money--the school doesn't get it). If anything, athletic programs are a DRAIN on resources at the overwhelming majority of schools.

You're on a whole different crusade here, Zimp. I'm not saying we should pay college players and I'm not saying cut out the agent rules in the NCAA. I'm saying that the baseball model - where kids can go straight to a developmental league from HS (A, AA, AAA), get seasoning and coaching, all that; or they can go to college first then to the pros.

You don't need a college degree to play sports at the highest level, why would we force kids to spend 3 years of their very short career playing for a degree that they probably won't use? Let them go ahead and start making money. If they decide they want an education later in life, they can do it just like the rest of us did.

[Zimpel Man]

WhoDat205, on 23 July 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

Quote

Yeah, but Tulane tends to send first rounders from time to time and a number of very effective starters otherwise (you'd be suprised who went to Tulane and is playing in the league), as do a lot of schools that struggle to make ends meet. But your "invitation" example echoes what I just said about the role agents would play. Are these kids any more than middle round picks aside from the agents saying they should be?

How many "marginally" talented 18 year olds went on to become stars in the NFL? So that's when the decision about who is going to the NFL should be made? The fact remains that football is at the schools because the schools are there, not the other way around. The argument is starting to sound like the schools wouldn't survive except for the money that football brings in (except I think I've heard things like the athletic program at LSU gets the money--the school doesn't get it). If anything, athletic programs are a DRAIN on resources at the overwhelming majority of schools.

You're on a whole different crusade here, Zimp. I'm not saying we should pay college players and I'm not saying cut out the agent rules in the NCAA. I'm saying that the baseball model - where kids can go straight to a developmental league from HS (A, AA, AAA), get seasoning and coaching, all that; or they can go to college first then to the pros.

You don't need a college degree to play sports at the highest level, why would we force kids to spend 3 years of their very short career playing for a degree that they probably won't use? Let them go ahead and start making money. If they decide they want an education later in life, they can do it just like the rest of us did.

i agree, if they want to go make money, let the NFL create a developmental league, and let the "lesser" players go to college. We'll see where the money continues to go. The only thing that will change is that you have cheated a large number of kids that don't make it to the bigs out of the possibility of an education that might serve them throughout their lives. And before you say that already happens with baseball, who do you think is better academically coming out of high school, your average football player or your average baseball player? And which stands a chance of going to or back to college when their minor league career is over?