Goobear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Hold on a second. I distinctly remember you back track the "slave catcher" analogy. So double down on that? Man, get your arguments straight.

---

Umm, no. You're attributing your own misinterpretation to what I've written, again. I've never made a "slave catcher" analogy. That's entirely your own imagination. I have repeatedly analogized Nick Saban's lamenting of the legalized paying of student athletes with the lamenting of those Southerners who waxed nostalgic for the slavery era.

---

01, I agree with you on Saban. A true hypocrite indeed. In more ways than I can disclose. Most of the players that got paid there were not white players…..What I don't understand you have to mention slavery etc etc because we are on a fb discussion thread not a politics thread.

---

I brought up slavery as an analogy. For some reason CAL83DLS79. Namely, Saban's longing for the era of amateur student athletics was somehow better for everyone was as hypocritical as those Southerners who claim that slavery was better for everyone. Both ignore the fact that the student-athletes/slaves were exploited and received nothing (legally) while enriching the coaches (and administrators) and the slave owners. It was a simple analogy that CAL83DLS79 seemed unable to comprehend, so he made a mountain out of it. And here we are.

cal83dls79 said:

---

I don't disagree with anything you said. I took umbrage to this castigation of Saban ( spelled correctly) as some southerner slave catcher thanks to '01.

My focus now is on road trips to ACC from Maine.
BC and PItt all set

---

Again, despite your claims to the contrary, I never called or even implied Saban was a slave catcher. That was entirely your own imagination. I simply analogized him with those Southerners who pine for "the good ol' days" when slavery was the law of the land in the South.

philly1121 said:

---

Sebasta - then who is the villain in all this? The coaches? The players? NCAA? The fans?

---

IMHO, there's a lot of blame to go around. It starts with the NCAA, the media companies, the coaches, and the administrators who got rich on the backs of the student athletes for generations. They exploited the student athletes and offered little in return. Sure some managed to graduate with a degree that helped elevate them from the financially disadvantaged world they knew before college, but countless others wound up falling back into the same world they sought to escape.

How many schools pushed their football and mens's basketball players into Mickey Mouse classes and useless majors just so the players could retain academic eligibility? The players were unsophisticated and didn't know those useless majors in underwater basketweaving wouldn't translate into paying jobs after college. With no career prospects, the former student athletes inevitably wound up where they started: financially disadvantaged.

Meanwhile, the coaches who promised to love those student athletes and treat them like family moved on to another set of student athletes to replace those out of eligibility. They made millions from the blood, sweat, and tears of the student athletes who did whatever the coaches told them. But as soon as the student athletes are out of eligibility, the coaches turn their backs on them.

The NCAA and the media companies made (and continue to make) billions of dollars from the student athletes' work. The NCAA ridiculously enforced amateurism rules against the players while allowing everyone else to profit from the players' labors. Lest we forget, the NCAA amateurism rules were originally implemented specifically to maintain athletics as the realm of the wealthy and prevent the economically disadvantaged from being able to participate. Of course, once college sports started being profitable, the once excluded poor kids were highly recruited to play, but not to share in any of the financial revenue their play generated.

The college administrators went along with this system and gave it a veneer of respectability. They took the profits that came from their football and men's basketball programs and used it to fund whatever else they and their schools wanted, including their own salaries. While some schools implemented programs designed to help the student athletes (e.g., tutoring), how many of these schools actually steered the student athletes toward marketable majors? How many of them, instead, helped the coaches pushed the student athletes into impractical majors in order to keep the spirts revenue machine going?

In short, the players are the injured parties, here. Just about everyone else has dirty hands.

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

---

Just like English Football, the biggest moneymaker of all! (Soon to be renamed the BoneSaw League.)

I'm not fond of the relegation model either, because the idea that somehow you can get from where you're at to a higher level in football is going to inevitably, I think, lead to trying to figure out how we lower the bar in other ways in order to get to the next level in football.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

---

Just like English Football, the biggest moneymaker of all! (Soon to be renamed the BoneSaw League.)

---

At least in English football, the teams don't have to replace 20-25% of the team (including the best players) each year. There's an incentive to stay around, even in a team that just got relegated: long-term contracts with lots of $$$. In the NCAA, there won't be the same incentive, since student athletes only have four years of eligibility. They have to find some school where they will be able to be noticed and increase their pro league stock.

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

---

Just like English Football, the biggest moneymaker of all! (Soon to be renamed the BoneSaw League.)

---

At least in English football, the teams don't have to replace 20-25% of the team (including the best players) each year. There's an incentive to stay around, even in a team that just got relegated: long-term contracts with lots of $$$. In the NCAA, there won't be the same incentive, since student athletes only have four years of eligibility. They have to find some school where they will be able to be noticed and increase their pro league stock.

---

Players that produce at lower levels would look to move up. Some players riding the bench at higher levels would look to move down for playing time. We are already seeing that.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

---

How is that different than the current situation of have and have not conferences? With the strata permanently etched in stone? Just wait until the the B1G and SEC are able to spend up to $70 million a year on players.

Yes, under a relegation system (plus open, competitively bid broadcast payment system) teams would tend to find their level. But that level would be based on markets, competition and performance. The annual schedule would be played against comparable teams in your region. The great likelihood is Cal would be in the West First Division (essentially what the PAC-12 was).

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

philly1121 said:

---

Sebasta - then who is the villain in all this? The coaches? The players? NCAA? The fans?

I think you're blaming Saban for being paid this outlandish money but then having the audacity of calling out the economic landscape of college football as completely skewed. Now I'll admit that he's crying with a loaf of bread under each arm but - the man did win six national championships. Wouldn't we want something like that?

You're blaming Saban but he's not the real villain in all this. Its the NCAA and fans. the NCAA refused to change. And 100 plus years of "amateurism" in college sports finally caught up with them. And its fans fault because college football never had a true national champion. There was near unanimity that fans wanted a playoff. This has, in effect, pushed big programs to turn near professional in their approach. Couple that with the NCAA's refusal to change, their corruption and not giving a damn about athletes - we are now where we are today.

---

Sebasta is jealous, naturally, despite the fact that Saban was actually underpaid for his six national championships! In the future schools will end up paying similar amounts for nothing.

bear2034 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Sebasta - then who is the villain in all this? The coaches? The players? NCAA? The fans?

I think you're blaming Saban for being paid this outlandish money but then having the audacity of calling out the economic landscape of college football as completely skewed. Now I'll admit that he's crying with a loaf of bread under each arm but - the man did win six national championships. Wouldn't we want something like that?

You're blaming Saban but he's not the real villain in all this. Its the NCAA and fans. the NCAA refused to change. And 100 plus years of "amateurism" in college sports finally caught up with them. And its fans fault because college football never had a true national champion. There was near unanimity that fans wanted a playoff. This has, in effect, pushed big programs to turn near professional in their approach. Couple that with the NCAA's refusal to change, their corruption and not giving a damn about athletes - we are now where we are today.

---

Sebasta is jealous, naturally, despite the fact that Saban was actually underpaid for his six national championships! In the future schools will end up paying similar amounts for nothing.

---

Not sure how "jealousy" is the principal vibe you get off of what I posted. But you do you. And shockingly you are dead wrong about the direction of college football coach salaries. Try again

Sebastabear said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Sebasta - then who is the villain in all this? The coaches? The players? NCAA? The fans?

I think you're blaming Saban for being paid this outlandish money but then having the audacity of calling out the economic landscape of college football as completely skewed. Now I'll admit that he's crying with a loaf of bread under each arm but - the man did win six national championships. Wouldn't we want something like that?

You're blaming Saban but he's not the real villain in all this. Its the NCAA and fans. the NCAA refused to change. And 100 plus years of "amateurism" in college sports finally caught up with them. And its fans fault because college football never had a true national champion. There was near unanimity that fans wanted a playoff. This has, in effect, pushed big programs to turn near professional in their approach. Couple that with the NCAA's refusal to change, their corruption and not giving a damn about athletes - we are now where we are today.

---

Sebasta is jealous, naturally, despite the fact that Saban was actually underpaid for his six national championships! In the future schools will end up paying similar amounts for nothing.

---

Not sure how "jealousy" is the principal vibe you get off of what I posted. But you do you. And shockingly you are dead wrong about the direction of college football coach salaries. Try again

---

So Saban was underpaid then.

01Bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Sebasta - then who is the villain in all this? The coaches? The players? NCAA? The fans?

---

IMHO, there's a lot of blame to go around. It starts with the NCAA, the media companies, the coaches, and the administrators who got rich on the backs of the student athletes for generations. They exploited the student athletes and offered little in return. Sure some managed to graduate with a degree that helped elevate them from the financially disadvantaged world they knew before college, but countless others wound up falling back into the same world they sought to escape.

How many schools pushed their football and mens's basketball players into Mickey Mouse classes and useless majors just so the players could retain academic eligibility? The players were unsophisticated and didn't know those useless majors in underwater basketweaving wouldn't translate into paying jobs after college. With no career prospects, the former student athletes inevitably wound up where they started: financially disadvantaged.

Meanwhile, the coaches who promised to love those student athletes and treat them like family moved on to another set of student athletes to replace those out of eligibility. They made millions from the blood, sweat, and tears of the student athletes who did whatever the coaches told them. But as soon as the student athletes are out of eligibility, the coaches turn their backs on them.

The NCAA and the media companies made (and continue to make) billions of dollars from the student athletes' work. The NCAA ridiculously enforced amateurism rules against the players while allowing everyone else to profit from the players' labors. Lest we forget, the NCAA amateurism rules were originally implemented specifically to maintain athletics as the realm of the wealthy and prevent the economically disadvantaged from being able to participate. Of course, once college sports started being profitable, the once excluded poor kids were highly recruited to play, but not to share in any of the financial revenue their play generated.

The college administrators went along with this system and gave it a veneer of respectability. They took the profits that came from their football and men's basketball programs and used it to fund whatever else they and their schools wanted, including their own salaries. While some schools implemented programs designed to help the student athletes (e.g., tutoring), how many of these schools actually steered the student athletes toward marketable majors? How many of them, instead, helped the coaches pushed the student athletes into impractical majors in order to keep the spirts revenue machine going?

In short, the players are the injured parties, here. Just about everyone else has dirty hands.

---

Couldn't these athletes choose to study and learn instead of getting high and playing Madden and therefore get a value out of their education? They must somewhere get some exposure to know that getting C's, not studying, and majoring in basket weaving aren't preparing them for a job outside of athletics. You characterize them as babies. Aren't there mature student athletes who take advantage of the educational opportunities provided?

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Sebasta - then who is the villain in all this? The coaches? The players? NCAA? The fans?

---

IMHO, there's a lot of blame to go around. It starts with the NCAA, the media companies, the coaches, and the administrators who got rich on the backs of the student athletes for generations. They exploited the student athletes and offered little in return. Sure some managed to graduate with a degree that helped elevate them from the financially disadvantaged world they knew before college, but countless others wound up falling back into the same world they sought to escape.

How many schools pushed their football and mens's basketball players into Mickey Mouse classes and useless majors just so the players could retain academic eligibility? The players were unsophisticated and didn't know those useless majors in underwater basketweaving wouldn't translate into paying jobs after college. With no career prospects, the former student athletes inevitably wound up where they started: financially disadvantaged.

Meanwhile, the coaches who promised to love those student athletes and treat them like family moved on to another set of student athletes to replace those out of eligibility. They made millions from the blood, sweat, and tears of the student athletes who did whatever the coaches told them. But as soon as the student athletes are out of eligibility, the coaches turn their backs on them.

The NCAA and the media companies made (and continue to make) billions of dollars from the student athletes' work. The NCAA ridiculously enforced amateurism rules against the players while allowing everyone else to profit from the players' labors. Lest we forget, the NCAA amateurism rules were originally implemented specifically to maintain athletics as the realm of the wealthy and prevent the economically disadvantaged from being able to participate. Of course, once college sports started being profitable, the once excluded poor kids were highly recruited to play, but not to share in any of the financial revenue their play generated.

The college administrators went along with this system and gave it a veneer of respectability. They took the profits that came from their football and men's basketball programs and used it to fund whatever else they and their schools wanted, including their own salaries. While some schools implemented programs designed to help the student athletes (e.g., tutoring), how many of these schools actually steered the student athletes toward marketable majors? How many of them, instead, helped the coaches pushed the student athletes into impractical majors in order to keep the spirts revenue machine going?

In short, the players are the injured parties, here. Just about everyone else has dirty hands.

---

Couldn't these athletes choose to study and learn instead of getting high and playing Madden and therefore get a value out of their education? They must somewhere get some exposure to know that getting C's, not studying, and majoring in basket weaving aren't preparing them for a job outside of athletics. You characterize them as babies. Aren't there mature student athletes who take advantage of the educational opportunities provided?

---

Recently Ron DeSantis defended slavery saying slaves were "given homes" and were "taught valuable skills like blacksmithing."

While a free education is great, it falls far short of the $billions in value the players created. If you believe in free markets you would understand that. Saban making hundreds of $millions while the players are limited to getting "a free education" plus room and board was unjust, especially when many of them could have gotten a nearly free education anyway and back in the day college was nearly free.

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA. The liberals and conservative majority agreed (think about that): the "amateurism" enforced by the NCAA was illegal and unjust.

bearister said:

---

Report: Potential No. 1 NFL Draft pick Caleb Williams made approximately $10 million in NIL deals at USC - Yahoo Sports


https://sports.yahoo.com/report-potential-no-1-nfl-draft-pick-caleb-williams-made-approximately-10-million-in-nil-deals-at-usc-164614055.html

---

This does not mean we need to raise 10s of millions to field a great team. It means if we have a top player (like Ott), corporations should be flocking to him with NIL deals of their own. No way donors paid that much for Williams. It's the sum of all endorsements, right? If not, then we are screwed.

bearsandgiants said:

---

bearister said:

---

Report: Potential No. 1 NFL Draft pick Caleb Williams made approximately $10 million in NIL deals at USC - Yahoo Sports


https://sports.yahoo.com/report-potential-no-1-nfl-draft-pick-caleb-williams-made-approximately-10-million-in-nil-deals-at-usc-164614055.html

---

This does not mean we need to raise 10s of millions to field a great team. It means if we have a top player (like Ott), corporations should be flocking to him with NIL deals of their own. No way donors paid that much for Williams. It's the sum of all endorsements, right? If not, then we are screwed.

---

"The 21-year-old has partnerships with Dr. Pepper, Nissan, Wendy's, United, and many others."

I wonder if any of their other scholar/athletes had any side hustles?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

---

and?

cal83dls79 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

---

and?

---

It seems that accepting NIL "inducements" do not necessarily tie "scholar/athletes" to a particular school.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

---

and?

---

It seems that accepting NIL "inducements" do not necessarily tie "scholar/athletes" to a particular school.

---

. Ok, that's kind of an issue. Right?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

---

and?

---

It seems that accepting NIL "inducements" do not necessarily tie "scholar/athletes" to a particular school.

---

Does Cal Legends have the players sign contracts?

calumnus said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

---

and?

---

It seems that accepting NIL "inducements" do not necessarily tie "scholar/athletes" to a particular school.

---

Does Cal Legends have the players sign contracts?

---

This particular player's agents claim that since there is no official connection between the NIL group and Iowa, there is no there there. Sounds fishy, but let the fun begin.

Little things like breach and fraud still exist. Iowa boosters didn't intend to pay for this kid to play for Alabama. People shouldn't confuse strategically deciding not to sue with not having grounds to sue. With just the scant facts I know from barely paying attention to this story anyone could easily draft a fraud claim that would withstand demurrer. The rest is for discovery.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Little things like breach and fraud still exist. Iowa boosters didn't intend to pay for this kid to play for Alabama. People shouldn't confuse strategically deciding not to sue with not having grounds to sue. With just the scant facts I know from barely paying attention to this story anyone could easily draft a fraud claim that would withstand demurrer. The rest is for discovery.

---

interesting legalistic claims but look at it from a potential NIL contributor.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

So a five star offensive tackle who started all games for Alabama last year transferred to Iowa, his home state, after Saben retired, cashed the NIL checks from Iowa people's, and transferred back to 'Bama after partying with some of his former tide teammates.

lol

---

and?

---

It seems that accepting NIL "inducements" do not necessarily tie "scholar/athletes" to a particular school.

---

That's really what NIL was intended to be. Obviously, boosters for individual schools have taken advantage of NIL to recruit players to their schools, instead.

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

---

How is that different than the current situation of have and have not conferences? With the strata permanently etched in stone? Just wait until the the B1G and SEC are able to spend up to $70 million a year on players.

Yes, under a relegation system (plus open, competitively bid broadcast payment system) teams would tend to find their level. But that level would be based on markets, competition and performance. The annual schedule would be played against comparable teams in your region. The great likelihood is Cal would be in the West First Division (essentially what the PAC-12 was).

---

I actually think NIL is changing the hierarchy, hence Saban getting out of Dodge while he's still considered a great coach. I honestly don't know how things will shake out after NIL's been implemented for five or ten years. But I suspect schools with more affluent alumni will be better able to recruit the best players. This suggests schools like Bama, LSU, Auburn, and other schools in non-oil-producing/tech states will fall, especially states that tend to be in the bottom quartile of the US re economic growth.

Assuming my suspicions above are correct, this could create a new (more or less) permanent hierarchy. So you'd be right about that. But it would also be based on market conditions, as per your comments above. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that no matter what system is implemented a more or less permanent hierarchy will always be established. Winning teams/schools tend to attract more talent and financial support than teams that don't win. This tends to create a feedback loop. I really don't know if there's a way to stop the feedback loop other than implementing salary caps. But since NIL is not controlled by schools, as it rightly shouldn't be, I really don't see a legal way for that to happen.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sankey and Pettiti, it seems to me, are representing conferences where a number of the schools have fans that are not alumni, and root for those teams in the absence of an NFL team.

---

When you're trying to squeeze every last dollar out of college football, as Sankey and Petitti are doing, "t-shirt fans" are where the money is. The largest TV followings, and thus the largest piles of TV money, will always be with the teams whose casual fan base is 100 or 1000 times larger than their alumni base. Eventually, all of the teams in that category will be in either the SEC or Big Ten.

As for anyone who thinks this financial separation will be limited to football -- ha ha ha. The next big step will be using athletic revenue to pay college athletes, and not only football players. SEC and Big Ten athletic departments will be buying the best athletes in basketball and any other college sport they happen to care about, and sooner or later their leagues will be the only ones that matter in several college sports. Why did the SEC become dominant in college baseball? Because its teams decided to start shoveling piles of money into their own baseball teams, instead of watching Fresno State or Rice or Oregon State win the College World Series. Now multiply that effect over and over once they start paying the athletes directly.

---

As I've said before, if bifurcation is inevitable, I wish we'd just get on with it, and have one set of teams that are basically pros, and the other set that are supposed to be more akin to traditional student-athletes. If that second system provides them with the $25,000 to $50,000 stipends to support themselves and their familes while they go to school, I'm all for it.

Watching pros is not why i watch college sports. It reminds me of how irritated I would get when Gary Radnich would say he only watched college basketball to see the stars, because they were the future NBA players. That's not why I watch.

Also, I'm not convinced that your argument about basketball and other sports is correct. The difference between football and a lot of the other college sports is that football is basically only played in America, and those other sports are worldwide, making the talent pool much bigger. I think if the SEC and Big10 stay in the NCAA for basketball, there's still opportunity for others to compete with them.

---

Bifurcation is not inevitable. It is not even possible without an act of Congress nor would I argue is it even desirable. The old system was not equitable for the players. What you can see in other sports and in all markets is not a bright line but a range. Some schools will pay more than others. Just like some MLB teams pay more than others. The best system for handling this is the way English soccer does, with promotion and relegation between divisions. And yes, players that distinguish themselves at lower division teams will move to higher paying upper division teams.

If Congress were to ever act I would want the country split into 4 regions: North, South, East and West with divisions within each region and promotion and relegation between divisions in each region. Teams will find their natural level, paying players what they can, offering the education (that part would be a requirement) that they do.

Until then it will be unequal competition, like MLB or the SEC. Cal can compete with anyone under the current NIL rules, but once schools start spending their media revenues, the B1G and SEC will dominate (again).

---

I'm not really fond of the relegation model. If a team is in the second division, it'll be hard to recruit players to that school. This will inevitably lead to a situation of permanent haves and have-nots.

---

How is that different than the current situation of have and have not conferences? With the strata permanently etched in stone? Just wait until the the B1G and SEC are able to spend up to $70 million a year on players.

Yes, under a relegation system (plus open, competitively bid broadcast payment system) teams would tend to find their level. But that level would be based on markets, competition and performance. The annual schedule would be played against comparable teams in your region. The great likelihood is Cal would be in the West First Division (essentially what the PAC-12 was).

---

I actually think NIL is changing the hierarchy, hence Saban getting out of Dodge while he's still considered a great coach. I honestly don't know how things will shake out after NIL's been implemented for five or ten years. But I suspect schools with more affluent alumni will be better able to recruit the best players. This suggests schools like Bama, LSU, Auburn, and other schools in non-oil-producing/tech states will fall, especially states that tend to be in the bottom quartile of the US re economic growth.

Assuming my suspicions above are correct, this could create a new (more or less) permanent hierarchy. So you'd be right about that. But it would also be based on market conditions, as per your comments above. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that no matter what system is implemented a more or less permanent hierarchy will always be established. Winning teams/schools tend to attract more talent and financial support than teams that don't win. This tends to create a feedback loop. I really don't know if there's a way to stop the feedback loop other than implementing salary caps. But since NIL is not controlled by schools, as it rightly shouldn't be, I really don't see a legal way for that to happen.

---

the ole feedback loop. Gets you every time

It seems that the USC NIL group just outbid Georgia for their five star in state DT in the 2025 class. Look out SEC. The old powers are about to be outspent by their western newer additions, texas, atm and okie. Oil money trumps tradition.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

It seems that the USC NIL group just outbid Georgia for their five star in state DT in the 2025 class. Look out SEC. The old powers are about to be outspent by their western newer additions, texas, atm and okie. Oil money trumps tradition.

---

and we have Kaboom money