Here’s our ESPN story on Boston College head coach Jeff Hafley’s expected move to Green Bay, where he’ll become the Packers defensive coordinator. He’s a veteran NFL assistant with seven seasons of various roles in the secondary with Bucs, Browns and 49ers https://t.co/KQYe11ILXj

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) January 31, 2024

okaydo said:

---

Here’s our ESPN story on Boston College head coach Jeff Hafley’s expected move to Green Bay, where he’ll become the Packers defensive coordinator. He’s a veteran NFL assistant with seven seasons of various roles in the secondary with Bucs, Browns and 49ers https://t.co/KQYe11ILXj

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) January 31, 2024

---

Herbstreit is exactly right. These coaches will be actively seeking a refuge in the NFL. Hafley has NFL experience but he walked away from a college HC role to be a DC in Green Bay. Likley cut his pay in half. By choice.

Chip Kelly is believed to be actively lobbying for an NFL OC role. Rumors that he is trying to get on with the Raiders. Can you imagine leavig a $6M gig to work for the Raiders and report to Antonio Pierce and Mark Davis? He is also rumored to be a potential OC for Dan Quinn should he get the Commanders HC job.

Nick Saban is 72 and certainly of retirement age, but it has been suggested by many that NIL and Transfer Portal issues made that decision to retire a lot easier.

Not a day goes by that some rumor of a HC looking around at the NFL to gain some sort of work/life balance back is suggested. We have heard that Lincoln Riley is interested. Ryan Day has NFL experience but seems to be taking one last shot at winning a championship at Ohio St. If he loses to Michigan again he likley will be available regardless.

Realignment was the talk of last off season. This offseason there needs to be some serious talk about NIL and the transfer portal. These are existential threats to the game. The players need a piece of the pie and some degree of freedom of movement. Find a way to make it happen.

okaydo said:

---

Here’s our ESPN story on Boston College head coach Jeff Hafley’s expected move to Green Bay, where he’ll become the Packers defensive coordinator. He’s a veteran NFL assistant with seven seasons of various roles in the secondary with Bucs, Browns and 49ers https://t.co/KQYe11ILXj

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) January 31, 2024

---

Herbstreit's comment is interesting. He sees the changes as negative but reversible.

I do think that the NIL era will change the calculus and college football will become less "big name head coach" centric. This is not bad for Cal if we can survive the next five years.

Makes sense that BC's coach wants out. NIL is probably not helpful to BC. At all.

Anyway, the instability will accelerate for as long as the universities and the NCAA keep trying to slow or stop the trends.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/01/31/tennessee-ncaa-investigation-college-athletics-chaos/72420408007/

Quote:

---

Regardless of what it was meant to be, NIL is now nothing more than a tax on fans. And the idea that athletic departments are using it as a crutch to keep their nonprofit status and duck what has become an obvious responsibility to operate like proper businesses is an outrage that nobody should stand for.

Not fans. Not politicians. And if they had any self-respect or shame, not even the administrators who are getting paid millions of dollars to pass around collection plates like Megachurch pastors.

. . .

Without an admission that they run a big business and college athletes are their employees, they are all doomed to a series of conflicts that result in rancor and frustration with no endgame in sight.

---

EMBRACE THE CHAOS

"Chaos is a ladder"
Littllefinger

BearSD said:

---

Makes sense that BC's coach wants out. NIL is probably not helpful to BC. At all.

Anyway, the instability will accelerate for as long as the universities and the NCAA keep trying to slow or stop the trends.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/01/31/tennessee-ncaa-investigation-college-athletics-chaos/72420408007/

Quote:

---

Regardless of what it was meant to be, NIL is now nothing more than a tax on fans. And the idea that athletic departments are using it as a crutch to keep their nonprofit status and duck what has become an obvious responsibility to operate like proper businesses is an outrage that nobody should stand for.

Not fans. Not politicians. And if they had any self-respect or shame, not even the administrators who are getting paid millions of dollars to pass around collection plates like Megachurch pastors.

. . .

Without an admission that they run a big business and college athletes are their employees, they are all doomed to a series of conflicts that result in rancor and frustration with no endgame in sight.

---

---

Interesting article. I think he ignores the fact that boosters in many places have been giving their money to players for decades. Notwithstanding the NCAAs current attempts at enforcement, it is legal now.

Cal has a comparative advantage in the current environment. Our school doesn't have a lot of revenues for big name coaches, and our coaches are not great recruiters, but we have cheap ticket prices, a huge wealthy alumni base and a well run collective. It levels the playing field with schools where the boosters were already paying players. The evidence this is true is that Cal is a top player in the transfer portal two years in a row now.

The step he proposes, that players be paid out of the school's media revenue, is probably inevitable, and it will "restore" the imbalance. However, it will be tough for Cal to compete with our fractional share of ACC revenue.

However, I think we are a few ways away from that. We can succeed under the current rules until we get to full ACC share. In the meantime, we will need to make the cuts to other sports that other schools will need to make when players become university employees. We could be a step ahead of the pack.

Not surprised that "old school" coaches are fleeing the mess that is NIL and the transfer portal. Fundraising , constantly recruiting including your own team.

However, there will be plenty of others who will embrace the current system and excel. The Littlefinger quote above is apt here: this chaos will provide lots of opportunities.

Another article, similar take to the one above, though not as pointed. Again, IMO the impact is greater for coaches in certain situations like BC where NIL might not be advantageous.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39433687/scott-van-pelt-one-big-thing-ncaa-athletics-not-sustainable

Quote:

---

I don't blame coaches who just decide they've had enough. Or if they compare the pros and cons and decide to go to the pros to take a step back in title for an upgrade in life.

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Makes sense that BC's coach wants out. NIL is probably not helpful to BC. At all.

Anyway, the instability will accelerate for as long as the universities and the NCAA keep trying to slow or stop the trends.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/01/31/tennessee-ncaa-investigation-college-athletics-chaos/72420408007/

Quote:

---

Regardless of what it was meant to be, NIL is now nothing more than a tax on fans. And the idea that athletic departments are using it as a crutch to keep their nonprofit status and duck what has become an obvious responsibility to operate like proper businesses is an outrage that nobody should stand for.

Not fans. Not politicians. And if they had any self-respect or shame, not even the administrators who are getting paid millions of dollars to pass around collection plates like Megachurch pastors.

. . .

Without an admission that they run a big business and college athletes are their employees, they are all doomed to a series of conflicts that result in rancor and frustration with no endgame in sight.

---

---

Interesting article. I think he ignores the fact that boosters in many places have been giving their money to players for decades. Notwithstanding the NCAAs current attempts at enforcement, it is legal now.

Cal has a comparative advantage in the current environment. Our school doesn't have a lot of revenues for big name coaches, and our coaches are not great recruiters, but we have cheap ticket prices, a huge wealthy alumni base and a well run collective. It levels the playing field with schools where the boosters were already paying players. The evidence this is true is that Cal is a top player in the transfer portal two years in a row now.

The step he proposes, that players be paid out of the school's media revenue, is probably inevitable, and it will "restore" the imbalance. However, it will be tough for Cal to compete with our fractional share of ACC revenue.

However, I think we are a few ways away from that. We can succeed under the current rules until we get to full ACC share. In the meantime, we will need to make the cuts to other sports that other schools will need to make when players become university employees. We could be a step ahead of the pack.

---

If the new NIL situation somehow helps Cal then by the laws governing the college football world it cannot stay as is.

#norosebowlinmylifetime
#born8/1/59

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

BearSD said:

---

Makes sense that BC's coach wants out. NIL is probably not helpful to BC. At all.

Anyway, the instability will accelerate for as long as the universities and the NCAA keep trying to slow or stop the trends.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/01/31/tennessee-ncaa-investigation-college-athletics-chaos/72420408007/

Quote:

---

Regardless of what it was meant to be, NIL is now nothing more than a tax on fans. And the idea that athletic departments are using it as a crutch to keep their nonprofit status and duck what has become an obvious responsibility to operate like proper businesses is an outrage that nobody should stand for.

Not fans. Not politicians. And if they had any self-respect or shame, not even the administrators who are getting paid millions of dollars to pass around collection plates like Megachurch pastors.

. . .

Without an admission that they run a big business and college athletes are their employees, they are all doomed to a series of conflicts that result in rancor and frustration with no endgame in sight.

---

---

I've often wondered if today's sports journalists have a list of general topics or slants that they rotate through when required to generate some content. Among those might be:

• Former megastar who is now out of the game and broke
• Anniversary of a big game and how things have changed since then
• Major steps the local team needs to take to get back in contention
• Rightous indignation over a situation while proposing simplistic or no solutions at all

The above column would be in that last category. No surprise that it's in USA Today which was responsible for the Dumbing Down of Journalism 1.0 (followed by the Yahoo/Insider/Facebook etc crowd who are responsible for DDJ 2.0).

HearstMining said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Makes sense that BC's coach wants out. NIL is probably not helpful to BC. At all.

Anyway, the instability will accelerate for as long as the universities and the NCAA keep trying to slow or stop the trends.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/01/31/tennessee-ncaa-investigation-college-athletics-chaos/72420408007/

Quote:

---

Regardless of what it was meant to be, NIL is now nothing more than a tax on fans. And the idea that athletic departments are using it as a crutch to keep their nonprofit status and duck what has become an obvious responsibility to operate like proper businesses is an outrage that nobody should stand for.

Not fans. Not politicians. And if they had any self-respect or shame, not even the administrators who are getting paid millions of dollars to pass around collection plates like Megachurch pastors.

. . .

Without an admission that they run a big business and college athletes are their employees, they are all doomed to a series of conflicts that result in rancor and frustration with no endgame in sight.

---

---

I've often wondered if today's sports journalists have a list of general topics or slants that they rotate through when required to generate some content. Among those might be:

• Former megastar who is now out of the game and broke
• Anniversary of a big game and how things have changed since then
• Major steps the local team needs to take to get back in contention
• Rightous indignation over a situation while proposing simplistic or no solutions at all

The above column would be in that last category. No surprise that it's in USA Today which was responsible for the Dumbing Down of Journalism 1.0 (followed by the Yahoo/Insider/Facebook etc crowd who are responsible for DDJ 2.0).

---

Consumers want 24/7 content even if there is not enough news to warrant 24/7 coverage. That is why the networks moved to the cheap filler of debate shows.

There's an old cliche about trying to find a way to exploit any crisis. Here's an example of that.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39444847/big-ten-sec-form-advisory-group-conferences-bond-tightens

Quote:

---

The Big Ten and SEC have formed a joint advisory group of university presidents, chancellors and athletic directors to "address the significant challenges facing college athletics" and how to improve the student-athlete experience, the conferences announced Friday.
. . .
"The Big Ten and the SEC have substantial investment in the NCAA and there is no question that the voices of our two conferences are integral to governance and other reform efforts," Petitti said in a statement. "We recognize the similarity in our circumstances, as well as the urgency to address the common challenges we face."

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

---

Except at Cal.

Golden One said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

---

Except at Cal.

---

Mostly due to Knowlton, though we saw the same thing with Holmoe getting extended. There is a huge a contingent of Cal fans/boosters who often conflate the coach (or admin) we employ with the school and program that employs them, above even the players, and circle the wagons to defend bad hires.

Stanford does a much better job of cycling through coaches until they get a good one.

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

---

Except at Cal.

---

Mostly due to Knowlton, though we saw the same thing with Holmoe getting extended. There is a huge a contingent of Cal fans/boosters who often conflate the coach (or admin) we employ with the school and program that employs them, above even the players, and circle the wagons to defend bad hires.

Stanford does a much better job of cycling through coaches until they get a good one.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to pump up Stanford. Their football hiring record between Walsh's first stint and Harbaugh was dismal. Striking out 7 or 8 times in coaching hires between Walsh I and Harbaugh is not doing a good job.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

---

Except at Cal.

---

Mostly due to Knowlton, though we saw the same thing with Holmoe getting extended. There is a huge a contingent of Cal fans/boosters who often conflate the coach (or admin) we employ with the school and program that employs them, above even the players, and circle the wagons to defend bad hires.

Stanford does a much better job of cycling through coaches until they get a good one.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to pump up Stanford. Their football hiring record between Walsh's first stint and Harbaugh was dismal. Striking out 7 or 8 times in coaching hires between Walsh I and Harbaugh is not doing a good job.

---

Stanford has been to 4 Rose Bowls, an Orange and a Fiesta this century.

Denny Green, Tyrone Wiilingham, Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw were good hires. So was Bill Walsh even though it did not work out. Again, the key is they move on from even Bill Walsh after 3 years for not winning enough even though he won 10 his first year back.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

---

Except at Cal.

---

Mostly due to Knowlton, though we saw the same thing with Holmoe getting extended. There is a huge a contingent of Cal fans/boosters who often conflate the coach (or admin) we employ with the school and program that employs them, above even the players, and circle the wagons to defend bad hires.

Stanford does a much better job of cycling through coaches until they get a good one.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to pump up Stanford. Their football hiring record between Walsh's first stint and Harbaugh was dismal. Striking out 7 or 8 times in coaching hires between Walsh I and Harbaugh is not doing a good job.

---

Stanford has been to 4 Rose Bowls, an Orange and a Fiesta this century.

Denny Green, Tyrone Wiilingham, Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw were good hires. So was Bill Walsh even though it did not work out. Again, the key is they move on from even Bill Walsh after 3 years for not winning enough even though he won 10 his first year back.

---

All of those bowls are with Harbaugh and Shaw. None of them happened in those 8 failed coaching tenures in between Walsh I and Harbaugh.

If a team has several seasons in a row in which they never get above 6 or 7 wins, it doesn't matter whether that happens with one coach or three coaches not rising above mediocrity. The only extra thing you get with having three such coaches is that some people get their rocks off by seeing the first two fired. But to me, firing a coach is only positive if the next coach gets significantly better results.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'd also add that the success threshold for college coaches has gotten to a fairly extreme point. It used to be standard for a coach to get 4 years to build a program. Now, if you dont start performing within two years you are fired.

---

Except at Cal.

---

Mostly due to Knowlton, though we saw the same thing with Holmoe getting extended. There is a huge a contingent of Cal fans/boosters who often conflate the coach (or admin) we employ with the school and program that employs them, above even the players, and circle the wagons to defend bad hires.

Stanford does a much better job of cycling through coaches until they get a good one.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to pump up Stanford. Their football hiring record between Walsh's first stint and Harbaugh was dismal. Striking out 7 or 8 times in coaching hires between Walsh I and Harbaugh is not doing a good job.

---

Stanford has been to 4 Rose Bowls, an Orange and a Fiesta this century.

Denny Green, Tyrone Wiilingham, Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw were good hires. So was Bill Walsh even though it did not work out. Again, the key is they move on from even Bill Walsh after 3 years for not winning enough even though he won 10 his first year back.

---

All of those bowls are with Harbaugh and Shaw. None of them happened in those 8 failed coaching tenures in between Walsh I and Harbaugh.

If a team has several seasons in a row in which they never get above 6 or 7 wins, it doesn't matter whether that happens with one coach or three coaches not rising above mediocrity. The only extra thing you get with having three such coaches is that some people get their rocks off by seeing the first two fired. But to me, firing a coach is only positive if the next coach gets significantly better results.

---

In what way were Denny Green and especially Tyrone Willingham "failures"?

When Tyrone Willingham won the conference and took Stanford to the January 1, 2000 Rose Bowl…. we extended Tom Holmoe.

If Willingham was a "failure" than what were Mike White, Bruce Snyder and Jeff Tedford? Because they never made it to the Rose Bowl but Willingham did.

Regarding this thread

As pogo said , cal has met the enemy and he is us

Per murphy at cal buttered bread always falls buttered side down

Sigh, per vonnegUt, so it goes

Oakbear said:

---

Regarding this thread

As pogo said , cal has met the enemy and he is us

Per murphy at cal buttered bread always falls buttered side down

Sigh, per vonnegUt, so it goes

---

None of those clowns had a square jaw.

BearSD said:

---

Another article, similar take to the one above, though not as pointed. Again, IMO the impact is greater for coaches in certain situations like BC where NIL might not be advantageous.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39433687/scott-van-pelt-one-big-thing-ncaa-athletics-not-sustainable

Quote:

---

I don't blame coaches who just decide they've had enough. Or if they compare the pros and cons and decide to go to the pros to take a step back in title for an upgrade in life.

---

---

Rick Pitino says the NCAA should give up on enforcing NIL rules, and the players should be paid as professionals. Of course, as a coach who likes having control, what Pitino really wants is to have paid players under contract so that they can't leave for another college team unless he wants them to leave.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39454702/rick-pitino-says-ncaa-enforcement-arm-no-value-anymore

Quote:

---

"The enforcement staff needs to go away," Pitino said. "We need to stop all the hypocrisy of NIL. We need to stop it. Because they can't stop it. Whether I'm for it or against it doesn't matter.

"They are professional athletes. Get professionally paid. It's not going away. You can't try to get loopholes, because they take you to court. That's why I say -- so I'm not knocking the enforcement staff -- they're going to get taken to court every time they try to make a rule. So it's a tough time in college basketball right now. And for us, you can't really build programs and a culture because everybody leaves."

---

BearSD said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Another article, similar take to the one above, though not as pointed. Again, IMO the impact is greater for coaches in certain situations like BC where NIL might not be advantageous.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39433687/scott-van-pelt-one-big-thing-ncaa-athletics-not-sustainable

Quote:

---

I don't blame coaches who just decide they've had enough. Or if they compare the pros and cons and decide to go to the pros to take a step back in title for an upgrade in life.

---

---

Rick Pitino says the NCAA should give up on enforcing NIL rules, and the players should be paid as professionals. Of course, as a coach who likes having control, what Pitino really wants is to have paid players under contract so that they can't leave for another college team unless he wants them to leave.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39454702/rick-pitino-says-ncaa-enforcement-arm-no-value-anymore

Quote:

---

"The enforcement staff needs to go away," Pitino said. "We need to stop all the hypocrisy of NIL. We need to stop it. Because they can't stop it. Whether I'm for it or against it doesn't matter.

"They are professional athletes. Get professionally paid. It's not going away. You can't try to get loopholes, because they take you to court. That's why I say -- so I'm not knocking the enforcement staff -- they're going to get taken to court every time they try to make a rule. So it's a tough time in college basketball right now. And for us, you can't really build programs and a culture because everybody leaves."

---

---

To be honest I think this is why the efforts by ESPN and Fox and the Big and SEC to control the product and reduce the amounts that student overall can expect will fail. They will simply sue. The efforts to control the system is simply a cartel. Any efforts to take NIL in house, which is what these guys want, is a sure fail.

The only way this all gets done is through legislation. But legislation is not going to happen if all it does is make the 30 best teams separate
From the rest. No chance of that:

In fact, the legislation I see is the opposite - extend title 9, make everything more level, and restrict any sort of NIL from the Univerisites.

Oski87 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Another article, similar take to the one above, though not as pointed. Again, IMO the impact is greater for coaches in certain situations like BC where NIL might not be advantageous.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39433687/scott-van-pelt-one-big-thing-ncaa-athletics-not-sustainable

Quote:

---

I don't blame coaches who just decide they've had enough. Or if they compare the pros and cons and decide to go to the pros to take a step back in title for an upgrade in life.

---

---

Rick Pitino says the NCAA should give up on enforcing NIL rules, and the players should be paid as professionals. Of course, as a coach who likes having control, what Pitino really wants is to have paid players under contract so that they can't leave for another college team unless he wants them to leave.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39454702/rick-pitino-says-ncaa-enforcement-arm-no-value-anymore

Quote:

---

"The enforcement staff needs to go away," Pitino said. "We need to stop all the hypocrisy of NIL. We need to stop it. Because they can't stop it. Whether I'm for it or against it doesn't matter.

"They are professional athletes. Get professionally paid. It's not going away. You can't try to get loopholes, because they take you to court. That's why I say -- so I'm not knocking the enforcement staff -- they're going to get taken to court every time they try to make a rule. So it's a tough time in college basketball right now. And for us, you can't really build programs and a culture because everybody leaves."

---

---

To be honest I think this is why the efforts by ESPN and Fox and the Big and SEC to control the product and reduce the amounts that student overall can expect will fail. They will simply sue. The efforts to control the system is simply a cartel. Any efforts to take NIL in house, which is what these guys want, is a sure fail.

The only way this all gets done is through legislation. But legislation is not going to happen if all it does is make the 30 best teams separate
From the rest. No chance of that:

In fact, the legislation I see is the opposite - extend title 9, make everything more level, and restrict any sort of NIL from the Univerisites.

---

Hard to say what legislation, if any, would come out of Congress, though a simple one would just be to give the NCAA antitrust immunity. Anything with more detail just invites critics and opposition. It would then be up to the NCAA to create the framework and set the rules.

I could also imagine a separation of football and basketball from the other sports and a clarification by Congress that Title IX applies only to the non-revenue sports that are funded by the university and not the market.