I am not opposed to the players getting paid. They were getting screwed previously putting their bodies on theline making billions for the networks and NCAA.

What I don't get is where this leaves Cal.is this a net positive? Seems to me we are net no worse or better given that media rights deals can still be used to pay players, coaches, etc? This just separates us from smaller P4 schools like Wake Forest?

Memorial Stadium

Cal vs Santa Clara in football

edwinbear said:

---

You have the option of simply not watching without knocking over the table for everyone else who doesn't care.

---

Say, what? I am confuzzled by this post.

blungld said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I am not opposed to the players getting paid.

---

Why not standardize and have all players paid the same with insurance, housing, food, and school paid for?

And also cap coaches salaries and standards for that too?

And have extra TV money go to supporting robust and healthy olympic sports programs across the country?


I think the system now is so polluted with greed, narcissism, self-interest, disloyalty, and cheating it is really really hard to care or be a loyal fan to a totally corrupted enterprise.

---

Because everything you are suggesting is an anti trust violation and NCAA does not have an anti trust exemption.

Also, to some degree: what's the point? One of the interesting things about college football is that it's NOT a level playing field.

Wilner is skeptical, to say the least

"(I)t's difficult to ignore the leap-of-faith component built into their new world order. College sports has too many athletes with financial needs, too many sources of cash and too many fans who care about winning above all else.

The result is a revamped system that's rooted in best intentions but dependent on a leap of faith."

Adam Rittenberg @espn

"LAS VEGAS -- Maryland football coach Mike Locksley admitted Tuesday he "lost" the locker room in 2024 over which players to compensate, a factor that led to the Terrapins' worst season since his debut in 2019.
The Terrapins finished 4-8 and dropped all but one of their Big Ten contests. Maryland had more players selected in the NFL draft (six) than wins, as it lost its final five games, all by 14 points or more. Locksley attributed part of the struggles to the changing financial landscape in college football, as Maryland had to make decisions on how to compensate players through NIL deals and ultimately created some divisions."

Typically Cal. Completely oblivious to monumental changes going on around them.

golden sloth said:

---

The players no longer represent the school. College football sold it's community vibe to the highest bidder, and is so doing its lost its soul. Now the college football product has turned into complete garbage that is easily hateable.

---

The problem for most colleges is that the "sale" simply puts them deeper into the red. There may be a couple of dozen programs that actually show a profit because revenues are siphoned to huge salaries for coaches/ADs or to subsidize non-revenue sports. This means most schools have to hit their students, many of whom have no interest in athletics, for fees and use resources that might better go to academics to cover shortfalls. I have no quarrel with athletes being paid, but, in an era when the notion of an affordable public education is largely a pipe dream, I am stunned by the misplaced priorities.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Wilner is skeptical, to say the least

"(I)t's difficult to ignore the leap-of-faith component built into their new world order. College sports has too many athletes with financial needs, too many sources of cash and too many fans who care about winning above all else.

The result is a revamped system that's rooted in best intentions but dependent on a leap of faith."

---

He's wrong. "Best intentions", that's laughable. The goal of those who run college athletics is to hold onto as much of the pre-1980 way of doing business as they can while continuing to rake in all the revenue that pays fat salaries to coaches and administrators.

BearSD said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Wilner is skeptical, to say the least

"(I)t's difficult to ignore the leap-of-faith component built into their new world order. College sports has too many athletes with financial needs, too many sources of cash and too many fans who care about winning above all else.

The result is a revamped system that's rooted in best intentions but dependent on a leap of faith."

---

He's wrong. "Best intentions", that's laughable. The goal of those who run college athletics is to hold onto as much of the pre-1980 way of doing business as they can while continuing to rake in all the revenue that pays fat salaries to coaches and administrators.

---

Absolutely. Administrators and coaches have been dragged into this new world kicking and screaming (or just quitting).

Cal88 said:

---

GMP said:

---

blungld said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I am not opposed to the players getting paid.

---

Why not standardize and have all players paid the same with insurance, housing, food, and school paid for?

And also cap coaches salaries and standards for that too?

And have extra TV money go to supporting robust and healthy olympic sports programs across the country?


I think the system now is so polluted with greed, narcissism, self-interest, disloyalty, and cheating it is really really hard to care or be a loyal fan to a totally corrupted enterprise.

---

Because everything you are suggesting is an anti trust violation and NCAA does not have an anti trust exemption.

Also, to some degree: what's the point? One of the interesting things about college football is that it's NOT a level playing field.

---

The playing field has become a lot less level than it was only a few years ago, we have become a farm team not just for UCLA, Oregon, UW but also for Indiana and Northwestern.

University presidents and other concerned parties should be able to draft a policy that will restore some sanity back into NCAA sports, otherwise you're just going to end up with a superleague of a dozen or two teams poaching talent from the rest who are stuck in underpaid minor leagues.

This is not a good model for the future, even financially speaking.

---

Again, that would be an "antitrust conspiracy" under the current law and would even give Trump and Bondi an actual, legal excuse to jail university presidents.

Maybe Trump's planned executive order would eliminate that risk, but if the actual law isn't changed by Congress it will be challenged in court.

The inequity in college football has always existed. FCS vs FBS, P5 v G6, UC Davis as a farm team for Cal.

Cal's horrible leadership in the 5 years up until realignment (huge recency bias, since Stanford suffered the same fate) is the main reason we are where we are, but Cal has the potential to be hugely successful if we survive the next 5 years.

Regarding the OP, since 1960, Bay Area pro football teams have won more championships than the pro teams from any other metropolitan area. With the Raiders in Vegas, there is an opening for Cal to be the second Bay Area pro team, but we have to market like a pro team while simultaneously emphasizing the Cal traditions that distinguish us from the NFL. However, first we need a new/winning coach with an exciting offense featuring local stars to market. Everything else is lipstick on a pig.

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

GMP said:

---

blungld said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I am not opposed to the players getting paid.

---

Why not standardize and have all players paid the same with insurance, housing, food, and school paid for?

And also cap coaches salaries and standards for that too?

And have extra TV money go to supporting robust and healthy olympic sports programs across the country?


I think the system now is so polluted with greed, narcissism, self-interest, disloyalty, and cheating it is really really hard to care or be a loyal fan to a totally corrupted enterprise.

---

Because everything you are suggesting is an anti trust violation and NCAA does not have an anti trust exemption.

Also, to some degree: what's the point? One of the interesting things about college football is that it's NOT a level playing field.

---

The playing field has become a lot less level than it was only a few years ago, we have become a farm team not just for UCLA, Oregon, UW but also for Indiana and Northwestern.

University presidents and other concerned parties should be able to draft a policy that will restore some sanity back into NCAA sports, otherwise you're just going to end up with a superleague of a dozen or two teams poaching talent from the rest who are stuck in underpaid minor leagues.

This is not a good model for the future, even financially speaking.

---

Again, that would be an "antitrust conspiracy" under the current law and would even give Trump and Bondi an actual, legal excuse to jail university presidents.

Maybe Trump's planned executive order would eliminate that risk, but if the actual law isn't changed by Congress it will be challenged in court.

The inequity in college football has always existed. FCS vs FBS, P5 v G6, UC Davis as a farm team for Cal.

---

Never before to this extent.

I'm not a legal expert but it seems to me that common sense should prevail here, otherwise college football as we have known it will turn off the base of fans and alums that have supported the sport for over a century.

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

GMP said:

---

blungld said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

I am not opposed to the players getting paid.

---

Why not standardize and have all players paid the same with insurance, housing, food, and school paid for?

And also cap coaches salaries and standards for that too?

And have extra TV money go to supporting robust and healthy olympic sports programs across the country?


I think the system now is so polluted with greed, narcissism, self-interest, disloyalty, and cheating it is really really hard to care or be a loyal fan to a totally corrupted enterprise.

---

Because everything you are suggesting is an anti trust violation and NCAA does not have an anti trust exemption.

Also, to some degree: what's the point? One of the interesting things about college football is that it's NOT a level playing field.

---

The playing field has become a lot less level than it was only a few years ago, we have become a farm team not just for UCLA, Oregon, UW but also for Indiana and Northwestern.

University presidents and other concerned parties should be able to draft a policy that will restore some sanity back into NCAA sports, otherwise you're just going to end up with a superleague of a dozen or two teams poaching talent from the rest who are stuck in underpaid minor leagues.

This is not a good model for the future, even financially speaking.

---

Again, that would be an "antitrust conspiracy" under the current law and would even give Trump and Bondi an actual, legal excuse to jail university presidents.

Maybe Trump's planned executive order would eliminate that risk, but if the actual law isn't changed by Congress it will be challenged in court.

The inequity in college football has always existed. FCS vs FBS, P5 v G6, UC Davis as a farm team for Cal.

---

Never before to this extent.

I'm not a legal expert but it seems to me that common sense should prevail here, otherwise college football as we have known it will turn off the base of fans and alums that have supported the sport for over a century.

---

SO FAR, I don't see evidence of that YET (but it is coming).

For example here is what Sagarin (Predictor) says the scoring margin between #1 and #100 would be on a neutral field over the years:

2000 Oklahoma v Akron 39.9 pts
2010 Stanford v Sac State 34.7 pts
2020 Alabama v East Carolina 48.0 pts
2021 Georgia v Northwestern 35.0 pts
2022 Georgia v North Texas 35.5 pts
2024 Ohio State v Stanford 31.7 pts

If anything there has been a reduction in the difference between the #1 and #100 coincident with the Portal and then NIL. To the extent boosters from teams like Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama were already paying players, NIL has only allowed others like Cal to catch up and actually outperform most SEC and B1G teams in the portal. Top players who lose out in position battles at top teams can transfer to a team like Cal instead of riding the bench for 4 years. The value of the degree has more appeal to a player who is seeing their once "sure fire" NFL chances fade. Top teams have had to share their talent that way.

However, I do think the leveling effect will be short-lived now that P4 schools themselves are cleared to spend money from their VERY unequal media revenues on NIL. Cal, with the lowest revenues of any P4 school, along with the G5 schools, will have trouble keeping up and the SEC and B1G will start to pull away, even with the initial $20 million cap under the House Settlement. No way Cal is spending $20 million on NIL when our revenues are $10 million and our coaching staff makes at least that much.

Cal had a huge opportunity to make use of Top 20 Portal classes and our historically easy schedule with entry into the ACC in 2024 and 2025. We could have easily done what SMU did, but we squandered that opportunity (well, this year remains to be seen, but it is unlikely). I am afraid we are losing our window of opportunity.

"WASHINGTON President Trump has taken aim at college sports with a new executive order signed Thursday that seeks to empower federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education, which disburses funds to public universities, to help enforce new provisions on athletic scholarships and "pay-for-play" licensing deals for athletes.
The order directs the nation's largest athletic departments to maintain certain numbers of scholarships for women's and Olympic sports. And it seeks to rein in the lucrative name, image and likeness deals known as NIL that have dramatically transformed athlete compensation in recent years.
"The future of college sports is under unprecedented threat," the order says. "A national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating beyond repair and to protect non-revenue sports, including many women's sports, that comprise the backbone of intercollegiate athletics, drive American superiority at the Olympics and other international competitions, and catalyze hundreds of thousands of student-athletes to fuel American success in myriad ways."

Huh.

Why would Trump even care about this? I can think of two reasons:

• He wants to put in place restrictions/requirements that will give HIS federal government more leverage over universities similar to the threatened withdrawal of federal research grants.
• Regardless of what he does, or if he actually does nothing, the SEC / B1G will inevitably come out ahead. By being involved, he can claim credit when they do.

In his heart-of-hearts, Trump has wanted to own an NFL team since the early 1980s, but the owners have always rebuffed him. Why? Simple. They're smart business people who have a monopoly based on mutual agreements (occasionally broken by people like Jerry Jones). The last thing they want is somebody like Trump in the club, who will happily screw his partners, but even more importantly, has a reputation for driving his businesses into the ground. He has always been out for revenge here. One example is making a big deal about the kneeling for the national anthem protest a few years ago, and reigniting the Redskins naming issue in the last few weeks, putting their new stadium plans at risk.

HearstMining said:

---

Why would Trump even care about this? I can think of two reasons:

• He wants to put in place restrictions/requirements that will give HIS federal government more leverage over universities similar to the threatened withdrawal of federal research grants.
• Regardless of what he does, or if he actually does nothing, the SEC / B1G will inevitably come out ahead. By being involved, he can claim credit when they do.

In his heart-of-hearts, Trump has wanted to own an NFL team since the early 1980s, but the owners have always rebuffed him. Why? Simple. They're smart business people who have a monopoly based on mutual agreements (occasionally broken by people like Jerry Jones). The last thing they want is somebody like Trump in the club, who will happily screw his partners, but even more importantly, has a reputation for driving his businesses into the ground. He has always been out for revenge here. One example is making a big deal about the kneeling for the national anthem protest a few years ago, and reigniting the Redskins naming issue in the last few weeks, putting their new stadium plans at risk.

---

Those last two items were/are more him throwing red meat to his racist base. But yes, pushing around the NFL, universities, scientists, TV networks, Canada, Mexico, New York, California, his own party…. It is just what he does.

Let Trump do it. Harvard and Columbia will pay for everything

To Calalumnus: Please explain how I am a racist!!!!

I would never have gone to Cal if they didn't have major college sports; in fact, I probably wouldn't have gone to a school that branded themselves "Berkeley."

coachdeke said:

---

I would never have gone to Cal if they didn't have major college sports; in fact, I probably wouldn't have gone to a school that branded themselves "Berkeley."

---

Same, if not for fall Saturdays I would have looked at schools on the East Coast or maybe just stayed at home and commuted to UCSD.

Happy Sunshine and Rainbows