It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The COVID Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

I realize you're trolling but this is hard to argue against with anything other than appeals to emotion. I'd say what you write is true of all sports. But at least in professional sports, the players also profit. Players need to be paid and colleges/Congress need to find a way around Title IX in doing so. The NFL should also foot some of the bill - they've enjoyed their free minor league long enough.

It's beyond time.

Money corrupts everything. On the health side, we aren't even considering CTS which in my opinion is a much worse chronic issue for the sport.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Money corrupts everything. On the health side, we aren't even considering CTS which in my opinion is a much worse chronic issue for the sport.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy

Quote:

---

..Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative disease which causes severe and irreperable brain damage, as a result of repeated head injuries. Symptoms do not typically begin until years after the injuries and can include behavioral problems, mood problems, and problems with thinking. The disease often gets worse over time and can result in dementia. It is unclear if the risk of suicide is altered..

Most documented cases have occurred in athletes involved in striking-based combat sports, such as boxing, hence its original name dementia pugilistica (Latin for "fistfighter's dementia,") and contact sports such as American football, professional wrestling, ice hockey, rugby, and association football (soccer). Other risk factors include being in the military, prior domestic violence, and repeated banging of the head. The exact amount of trauma required for the condition to occur is unknown, and definitive diagnosis can only occur at autopsy. The disease is classified as a tauopathy.

There is no specific treatment for the disease. Rates of CTE have been found to be about 30% among those with a history of multiple head injuries. however population rates are unclear. Research in brain damage as a result of repeated head injuries began in the 1920s, at which time the condition was known as dementia pugilistica or "punch drunk syndrome". It has been proposed that the rules of some sports be changed as a means of prevention.

---

~2h loong..

GMP said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

I realize you're trolling but this is hard to argue against with anything other than appeals to emotion. I'd say what you write is true of all sports. But at least in professional sports, the players also profit. Players need to be paid and colleges/Congress need to find a way around Title IX in doing so. The NFL should also foot some of the bill - they've enjoyed their free minor league long enough.

It's beyond time.

---

Yes, I'm good at that as long as players can be cut at any time and forced to leave, including before they can play in any games, their fined for breaking rules, they can be traded to a lesser college at any time, their salary can be readjusted during their college stay, they leave the team they lose all income including scholarships are have to leave the school, and then Mr. Lawyer when it comes to what revenues they can hope to share, they figure out legally how to deal with the following:

1) The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years;

2) In the case of Cal, the lucrative ESP payments are pledged under bonds indentures to repayment of bonds and can't be used for operating expenses like paying players for at least 35 to 55 years.

3) A substantial portion (like essentially all) of donor and sponsor money is restricted for certain uses by contract as well as California law.

Which leaves the players sharing in unrestricted money, which is basically in non-ESP season ticket sales and
general admission tickets which isn't all that much. Not that great a deal.

We afford players some restrained level of benefits and shield them from the risks of being hired labor became they are perceived, in theory, to be student-athletes. Take that equation away and my sense is you end-up with a 20 team league based primarily in the southern US. You certainly won' have the Furd and Cal along for the ride. They simply will follow an Ivy League model.

Yes.

Of course, the semi pro programs will continue.

All joking aside,

It quite likely that in 10-20 years, there will only be 30-40 teams playing at the highest level of CFB, with almost every other school dropping football. Covid and revenue sharing will only hasten that transition IMO.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

I realize you're trolling but this is hard to argue against with anything other than appeals to emotion. I'd say what you write is true of all sports. But at least in professional sports, the players also profit. Players need to be paid and colleges/Congress need to find a way around Title IX in doing so. The NFL should also foot some of the bill - they've enjoyed their free minor league long enough.

It's beyond time.

---

Yes, I'm good at that as long as players can be cut at any time and forced to leave, including before they can play in any games, their fined for breaking rules, they can be traded to a lesser college at any time, their salary can be readjusted during their college stay, they leave the team they lose all income including scholarships are have to leave the school, and then Mr. Lawyer when it comes to what revenues they can hope to share, they figure out legally how to deal with the following:

1) The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years;

2) In the case of Cal, the lucrative ESP payments are pledged under bonds indentures to repayment of bonds and can't be used for operating expenses like paying players for at least 35 to 55 years.

3) A substantial portion (like essentially all) of donor and sponsor money is restricted for certain uses by contract as well as California law.

Which leaves the players sharing in unrestricted money, which is basically in non-ESP season ticket sales and
general admission tickets which isn't all that much. Not that great a deal.

We afford players some restrained level of benefits and shield them from the risks of being hired labor became they are perceived, in theory, to be student-athletes. Take that equation away and my sense is you end-up with a 20 team league based primarily in the southern US. You certainly won' have the Furd and Stanford along for the ride. They simply will follow an Ivy League model.

---

The Furd and Stanford?

Is that undergrad and grad?

ColoradoBear said:

---

All joking aside,

It quite likely that in 10-20 years, there will only be 30-40 teams playing at the highest level of CFB, with almost every other school dropping football. Covid and revenue sharing will only hasten that transition IMO.

---

Covid, CTS, Title IX, money problems that aren't going away. Shut it down then. SEC,B10,B12 can do whatever they want.

Cal should not be in the professional sports business. Think how small athletic department budgets would be if the schools abandoned grants in aid for athletes and excessive facilities. If the overall budgets are reduced, coaches' compensation would reduce as coaches would not be hired for their ability to fill stadiums. The country has plenty of professional sports and the "student athletes" who are in school only for the ticket to the pros can go directly.

If Stanford went along with it so we would still have a rival, I'd have no problem going down to a lower level of football. The enjoyment is getting to go to campus and seeing student-athletes compete for the school.

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

The only thing I'd look out for is the extent of male applications to matriculate. When colleges have dropped fb (one that I know of personally), the number and quality of male applicants has gone down. [enter snide remarks here]. That can be studied in re the Cal environment and the +/-'s balanced.

Otherwise, D1 colleges have been subsidizing minor league fb for decades. I've loved it, but paying players, looking the other way at what little education they get/seek (not the issue at Cal - I've been fascinated with how to keep the stds as high as we have and still be competitive) wasn't going to last forever.

What happens if Title IX limits us to Men's and Women's Golf? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...at that point.

Jeff82 said:

---

If Stanford went along with it so we would still have a rival, I'd have no problem going down to a lower level of football. The enjoyment is getting to go to campus and seeing student-athletes compete for the school.

---

Stanford already told donors in an article published in the alumni magazine they are leaving for an Ivy model if players are paid. The question is would Cal follow and I believe that would be the case. The economics and litigation risk are such that Colorado Bear is correct.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Money corrupts everything. On the health side, we aren't even considering CTS which in my opinion is a much worse chronic issue for the sport.

---

I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. I find it ironic that the players are banding together because of safety and health concerns now. Football on it's own, without this pandemic poses a similar and, in some ways, greater risk.

"The China Virus", really hanky, if you were trying to be funny, you weren't and if are serious you are just an ass!

I have been trying to listen, learn and not jump to many conclusions at this point

too many dynamics, unknowns, and parties involved, few of which I truly understand

there seem to be unintended consequences in every option. For example take just 2 options:

1. completely drop football - not nearly as simple as it sounds given the impacts to finances (including the stadium debt), impact to players, commitments to third-parties, etc.

2. agree to enough of the WeAreUnited demands and proceed with a season - even if this happens, and I think it's doubtful, will we have a full team due to opt-outs and Covid19? If we did have a season, what other issues would result given SOMETHING unexpected will happen due to the unprecedented pandemic, social unrest, player revolt, economic situation, conflict with some of the academic side?

Both of these options will have huge groups of stakeholders in total meltdown

The biggest issue facing college football will be insurability. At present there is only one insurer willing to insure the NFL. If players earn a lot more I don't see how college football obtain insurance.

We just need to become a basketball school. It makes the math between men's and women's sports a lot easier. The state will just have to absorb the cost of the stadium and the Panoramic Hill People will just have to get used to concerts every weekend at memorial. Book Ozzy or Def Leopard first.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We just need to become a basketball school. It makes the math between men's and women's sports a lot easier. The state will just have to absorb the cost of the stadium and the Panoramic Hill People will just I

---

EIR anyone?

CALiforniALUM said:

---

..Panoramic Hill People will just have to get used to concerts every weekend at memorial. Book Ozzy or Def Leopard first.

---

yeahbut, it's not written anywhere covid's *ever* going away so marketing concert tickets may not fly neither.
# a world of hurt

I vote for the ivy league model. The money, the arms race has gotten out of hand. This is not the sport I loved.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

I realize you're trolling but this is hard to argue against with anything other than appeals to emotion. I'd say what you write is true of all sports. But at least in professional sports, the players also profit. Players need to be paid and colleges/Congress need to find a way around Title IX in doing so. The NFL should also foot some of the bill - they've enjoyed their free minor league long enough.

It's beyond time.

---

Yes, I'm good at that as long as players can be cut at any time and forced to leave, including before they can play in any games, their fined for breaking rules, they can be traded to a lesser college at any time, their salary can be readjusted during their college stay, they leave the team they lose all income including scholarships are have to leave the school, and then Mr. Lawyer when it comes to what revenues they can hope to share, they figure out legally how to deal with the following:

1) The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years;

2) In the case of Cal, the lucrative ESP payments are pledged under bonds indentures to repayment of bonds and can't be used for operating expenses like paying players for at least 35 to 55 years.

3) A substantial portion (like essentially all) of donor and sponsor money is restricted for certain uses by contract as well as California law.

Which leaves the players sharing in unrestricted money, which is basically in non-ESP season ticket sales and
general admission tickets which isn't all that much. Not that great a deal.

We afford players some restrained level of benefits and shield them from the risks of being hired labor became they are perceived, in theory, to be student-athletes. Take that equation away and my sense is you end-up with a 20 team league based primarily in the southern US. You certainly won' have the Furd and Cal along for the ride. They simply will follow an Ivy League model.

---

To paraphrase JFK: we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

I realize this will change a lot. But so what? Just because something was done a certain way for 150 years doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Yes, Cal might lose football. And that would suck. I would be extremely sad. I haven't posted on this message board tens of thousands of times, and tens of thousands of dollars to attend games, because Cal football is something I don't care deeply about.

But I can't put my happiness 12 Saturdays a year over the well-being of approximately 13,000 FBS football players all over the country, risking their health and well-being in exchange for an education. If they get paid, I think it flips the balance enough for me. Whatever changes happens to college football in exchange for doing the right thing, I'll live with that.


Edit to add: Please link your newspaper article re "The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years," I googled it, couldn't find it. Even if true, though, that's still more money in ten years. And funny enough the schools manage to find tens of millions to pay coaches and admin, and take on huge debt to build fancy training buildings. Maybe instead of insane training facilities, the players would prefer to be paid cash, like the rest of us.

GMP said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

I realize you're trolling but this is hard to argue against with anything other than appeals to emotion. I'd say what you write is true of all sports. But at least in professional sports, the players also profit. Players need to be paid and colleges/Congress need to find a way around Title IX in doing so. The NFL should also foot some of the bill - they've enjoyed their free minor league long enough.

It's beyond time.

---

Yes, I'm good at that as long as players can be cut at any time and forced to leave, including before they can play in any games, their fined for breaking rules, they can be traded to a lesser college at any time, their salary can be readjusted during their college stay, they leave the team they lose all income including scholarships are have to leave the school, and then Mr. Lawyer when it comes to what revenues they can hope to share, they figure out legally how to deal with the following:

1) The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years;

2) In the case of Cal, the lucrative ESP payments are pledged under bonds indentures to repayment of bonds and can't be used for operating expenses like paying players for at least 35 to 55 years.

3) A substantial portion (like essentially all) of donor and sponsor money is restricted for certain uses by contract as well as California law.

Which leaves the players sharing in unrestricted money, which is basically in non-ESP season ticket sales and
general admission tickets which isn't all that much. Not that great a deal.

We afford players some restrained level of benefits and shield them from the risks of being hired labor became they are perceived, in theory, to be student-athletes. Take that equation away and my sense is you end-up with a 20 team league based primarily in the southern US. You certainly won' have the Furd and Cal along for the ride. They simply will follow an Ivy League model.

---

To paraphrase JFK: we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

I realize this will change a lot. But so what? Just because something was done a certain way for 150 years doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Yes, Cal might lose football. And that would suck. I would be extremely sad. I haven't posted on this message board tens of thousands of times, and tens of thousands of dollars to attend games, because Cal football is something I don't care deeply about.

But I can't put my happiness 12 Saturdays a year over the well-being of approximately 13,000 FBS football players all over the country, risking their health and well-being in exchange for an education. If they get paid, I think it flips the balance enough for me. Whatever changes happens to college football in exchange for doing the right thing, I'll live with that.


Edit to add: Please link your newspaper article re "The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years," I googled it, couldn't find it. Even if true, though, that's still more money in ten years. And funny enough the schools manage to find tens of millions to pay coaches and admin, and take on huge debt to build fancy training buildings. Maybe instead of insane training facilities, the players would prefer to be paid cash, like the rest of us.

---

Google Wilner and today's date. Or see the links in other threads on Growls or Insiders.

BTW, if this was on say the USC or say an Auburn board, it would be blasphemy. Interesting that Cal fans have such different views.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

It just seems like college football has become obsolete. We should just get rid of it across the country. The China Virus just seems to make the case for getting rid of college football all together more compelling.

No one really benefits besides the head coach who makes gobs of money. Universities are saddled with debt bailing out cash strapped athletic departments. Money that could be spent in education. So universities and their students lose. Student athletes lose too because they aren't getting paid like they want and they never seem to be happy.

Maybe just better to get rid of college football and have the nfl set up a minor league system. This way, everyone wins except the billionaire nfl owners.

---

I realize you're trolling but this is hard to argue against with anything other than appeals to emotion. I'd say what you write is true of all sports. But at least in professional sports, the players also profit. Players need to be paid and colleges/Congress need to find a way around Title IX in doing so. The NFL should also foot some of the bill - they've enjoyed their free minor league long enough.

It's beyond time.

---

Yes, I'm good at that as long as players can be cut at any time and forced to leave, including before they can play in any games, their fined for breaking rules, they can be traded to a lesser college at any time, their salary can be readjusted during their college stay, they leave the team they lose all income including scholarships are have to leave the school, and then Mr. Lawyer when it comes to what revenues they can hope to share, they figure out legally how to deal with the following:

1) The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years;

2) In the case of Cal, the lucrative ESP payments are pledged under bonds indentures to repayment of bonds and can't be used for operating expenses like paying players for at least 35 to 55 years.

3) A substantial portion (like essentially all) of donor and sponsor money is restricted for certain uses by contract as well as California law.

Which leaves the players sharing in unrestricted money, which is basically in non-ESP season ticket sales and
general admission tickets which isn't all that much. Not that great a deal.

We afford players some restrained level of benefits and shield them from the risks of being hired labor became they are perceived, in theory, to be student-athletes. Take that equation away and my sense is you end-up with a 20 team league based primarily in the southern US. You certainly won' have the Furd and Cal along for the ride. They simply will follow an Ivy League model.

---

To paraphrase JFK: we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

I realize this will change a lot. But so what? Just because something was done a certain way for 150 years doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Yes, Cal might lose football. And that would suck. I would be extremely sad. I haven't posted on this message board tens of thousands of times, and tens of thousands of dollars to attend games, because Cal football is something I don't care deeply about.

But I can't put my happiness 12 Saturdays a year over the well-being of approximately 13,000 FBS football players all over the country, risking their health and well-being in exchange for an education. If they get paid, I think it flips the balance enough for me. Whatever changes happens to college football in exchange for doing the right thing, I'll live with that.


Edit to add: Please link your newspaper article re "The TV money will be pledged to bondholders (read the paper) so they will be barred for participation in that revenue stream for at least 10 years," I googled it, couldn't find it. Even if true, though, that's still more money in ten years. And funny enough the schools manage to find tens of millions to pay coaches and admin, and take on huge debt to build fancy training buildings. Maybe instead of insane training facilities, the players would prefer to be paid cash, like the rest of us.

---

Google Wilner and today's date. Or see the links in other threads on Growls or Insiders.

BTW, if this was on say the USC or say an Auburn board, it would be blasphemy. Interesting that Cal fans have such different views.

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/05/pac-12-rescue-operation-loan-program-would-bail-out-athletic-departments-if-football-is-canceled/

This is not remotely what you said. You said players would be "barred from participation in this revenue stream." Why they'd be barred if they had an agreement to split revenue is beyond me - if two parties have a deal to split revenue (at whatever percentage split), one party can't say, "Oh but this revenue is paying my pre-existing debt so we won't count that."

But your point is even weaker than that. You made it sound like there is an existing agreement pledging TV money to bondholders. But what you were referring to is nothing of the sort. This is a potential, discussed loan program, that is optional for each school. The loan would have to be paid back in ten years, but it won't tie up all the TV money for ten years, as you suggested. The loan is for a maximum of $83M payable at 3.75% over ten years - meaning this would only be $100M after interest payable over ten years, or $10M a year per school that takes the max. Last year each school received $30M in TV money, leaving $20M per school per year in TV money even if they take the full $83M. On top of that, as Wilner notes, there will be a new TV deal after 2024, which is expected to pay more than the current deal.

Question regarding Apple Tv. If they ended up being a partner, would some games only be on apple tv?

I'm not even trolling, I'm dead serious.

The NFL has benefited so much from college football without paying a dime. They get a free farm system and exposure of their future players to a national audience. The best college football players are already celebrities with a fan base before they ever play a down in the NFL.

And what does the NFL give in return for this free player development and exposure? Practically nothing. It's the universities that are getting bled dry.

I've always been a college football fan so I'd be very sad to see it go. But I care more about the University and its future. We can't bail out the athletic department and its projected +$100 mn loss.

It's time just to kill the whole thing.

For years I've said I'd be happy with an Ivy League model. The problem is, who could we then play unless at least Stanford (on the coast) were to follow suit?

Beautiful Memorial Stadium is expensive. It needs to be filled. Unless there is a reason to fill it, everything else related to Cal athletics is going to be adversely affected.

Now, if the majority of the Pac 12 would agree to going to the Ivy League model (at least five schools), we could keep some rivalries, and football could go back to being a fun and passionate amusement. We could all go back to campus, have the good times, and not worry about what the SEC, ACC, "Big"12 or Big 10 do.

Come to think of it.....if we could get around 5 Pac schools and around 5 Big 10 schools to go to the same Ivy League model...............

Well, it was an interesting thought, anyway.

TomBear said:

---

For years I've said I'd be happy with an Ivy League model. The problem is, who could we then play unless at least Stanford (on the coast) were to follow suit?

Beautiful Memorial Stadium is expensive. It needs to be filled. Unless there is a reason to fill it, everything else related to Cal athletics is going to be adversely affected.

Now, if the majority of the Pac 12 would agree to going to the Ivy League model (at least five schools), we could keep some rivalries, and football could go back to being a fun and passionate amusement. We could all go back to campus, have the good times, and not worry about what the SEC, ACC, "Big"12 or Big 10 do.

Come to think of it.....if we could get around 5 Pac schools and around 5 Big 10 schools to go to the same Ivy League model...............

Well, it was an interesting thought, anyway.

---

West

Cal
Furd
UCLA (?)
Rice
SMU
Neb (?)

East

Virginia
GA Tech
Tulane
Vandy
Michigan
Wisconsin/Purdue

Something like that. Leave 3 each for OOC. Then, league champ game.

Dropping to the FCS level (Ivy League plays here but does not participate in the playoffs) would need a very careful analysis. The Ivy League only averages 7700 fans which would not support the travel for Cal given its travel needs. The best FCS League attendance is only 15000 a game. Therefore, a league with some Big Ten schools may not work unless we still draw D1 attendance without whatever is D1. Can we keep enough fans with a Ivy experience?

AXLBear said:

---

I vote for the ivy league model. The money, the arms race has gotten out of hand. This is not the sport I loved.

---

It hasn't been the spirt you loved for a long time now. Schools were paying players to play since the 1920's at the latest. Schools were forcing players to play despite being the injured since the Flying Wedge. Players have gotten away with not being student athletes since the days of Jim Thorpe. Football has had an adverse impact on the "student-athlete" since at least the 1920's (take a look at the Marx Brothers "Horse Feathers"). Only now it has gotten worse. It's all a question of degree.

But sure let's close down CFB while Cal is stuck with a huge $350 million white elephant to pay for.

BearForce2 said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

All joking aside,

It quite likely that in 10-20 years, there will only be 30-40 teams playing at the highest level of CFB, with almost every other school dropping football. Covid and revenue sharing will only hasten that transition IMO.

---

Covid, CTS, Title IX, money problems that aren't going away. Shut it down then. SEC,B10,B12 can do whatever they want.

---

I love the concept that Title IX exists as a problem. Millions of women across this great country thank you. How did we ever survive with giving the women and girls the "right" to participate in sports?

If Cal went to the Ivy model, millions of dollars in grants in aid would be saved and available to support all sports. The money so saved would far offset the travel costs. I assume Cal would go Ivy for all sports. Thus, the non-revenue sports would be much easier to fund.

I think Universities are the farm leagues for all businesses, not just the NFL.

I watched I-banks recruit econ grads with 100K comp packages in exchange for 80 hour work weeks.

Med schools and the healthcare industry "exploit" similarly where you dont actually get paid real money until you are almost 30 years old. And then you write scripts for big pharma while trying to pay down 200K debt for the professional schooling. And I think similarly for Law, Business, tracks, etc.

Players definitely benefit by being able to leverage Universities to train for being in the Show while getting a degree paid for. At private schools that's 280K+ for 4 years.

And all of this is (in premise) a free market competition to qualify and advance. And I think free market principles should be the rule (with some regs). Is the US Army exploitative for paying privates what they pay on entry? Their choice, Pot has been sweetened with "benefits". I see CFB similarly.

Yes, there should be more healthcare and "security" for the collateral damage that occurs. When 99% of players dont make it to NFL but arguably they risk and sacrifice as much as the ones who do, you cant put that entirely into the caveat emptor kind of liability waiver bucket. Without those "other" players you dont have a quorum needed for the 1% to practice their craft.

bearchamp said:

---

If Cal went to the Ivy model, millions of dollars in grants in aid would be saved and available to support all sports. The money so saved would far offset the travel costs. I assume Cal would go Ivy for all sports. Thus, the non-revenue sports would be much easier to fund.

---

I think you have to do the math vs. ticket sales, tv revenues and donations before you come to this conclusion.