Tonight I watched....

[JeffS17]

4 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

So what's the solution?

 

I personally dont think there is one.  Combine all of this with football being a nasty sport for injuries— particularly head injuries, and my guess is it slowly “dies” at least as the most popular sport.  But Im sure there will be creative solutions to maximize interest and market share in the mean time, while football slowly declines and is replaced with other entertainment options.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 hours ago, sturt said:

The romance of college football played by players who play for the pride of their alma mater has been a constant for 100+ years. The game's economic well-being grew and thrived.

This new age of mercenary, loyalty-less college football represents a crack in the economic well-being of that consumer entertainment option that, over time, could do severe damage. And if we see the NFL make a G-League-like move, perceiving economic opportunity there, don't be surprised if the "over time" part of the previous sentence to be significantly compacted.

Only thing holding NFL back even now is the tradition and romance that top tier college football has enjoyed. If college football doesn't come up with some solution, they give NFL every reason to launch their own new... lucrative... business opportunity.

Romance was killed when billion dollar tv and media deals dictated how college football will be set up in the future.

Once again, don't punish the kids for looking out for their best interest, when college football in general does everything for the money.

The power programs want even more.

https://www.si.com/fannation/name-image-likeness/news/ncaa-proposes-new-tier-of-d-i-nil-payments-from-schools-allowed-noah9

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

27 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

I personally dont think there is one.  Combine all of this with football being a nasty sport for injuries— particularly head injuries, and my guess is it slowly “dies” at least as the most popular sport.  But Im sure there will be creative solutions to maximize interest and market share in the mean time, while football slowly declines and is replaced with other entertainment options.

I don't think it dies.  The new playoff is about to transform into "Winter March Madness".  It'll get even more crazy before it declines.

The big danger will be with NIL deals being more lucrative than rookie scale NFL and NBA contracts.  Then again, maybe that's what they want in order to keep kids in school as long as possible.

Coaches hate the transfer portal, because it gives kids ultimate control of where they want to play.  No longer are kids waiting 3 - 4 years to get their shot to play. They will go somewhere else in a heartbeat, and these coaches hate it.

But like I said in previous posts, as soon as these coaches are offered a nice bag of money, they'll leave those kids in a heartbeat.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

So what's the solution?

 

"The," I'm not sure.

But "one"... I just gave "one," of course.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 hours ago, Watchman said:

I  would suggest that any healthy student who opts out of playing in a bowl game for his college should be made financially responsible for all  costs related to tuition, housing, meals, conditioning and healthcare,  and travel costs for his entire time at the college.  They were provided with these benefits at the expense of the college, and they chose to renege on their end of the agreement.  However, since they are to receive all this money from the NFL these costs should only be a drop in the bucket to these students who chose their wellbeing over the college that provided all these costs and services for them, right?

What about the coach who leaves his kids high and dry to take another job? What happens to coach?. Does he get punished financially too?

Punish a kid because he opts out of an exhibition bowl game that no one will care about in a week?

[shakes]

20 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

One of the huge reasons why the playoff is expanding to 12 teams, is so that these kids can have something to play for after the season is over.  These bowl games are for the most part, exhibition games, unless you're a smaller program playing a bigger program, like Liberty playing Oregon.

Don't villify kids because they dont want to play in the Cheez-It Citrus Bowl, because they want to improve their draft stock.  Don't act Drake Mayne is selfish, because he wants to protect his top 10 draft status, and opts out of the Duke's Mayo Bowl against West Virginia.  That's a potential 15 million dollar signing bonus decision you want him to just forego, just to play in a meaningless bowl game.  That's not counting the multi year contract coming your way.

And speaking of that, if you got that "good job" with your college degree, making $100K a year, it would take you 150 years to make 15 million in your life. You would have to do extra things, like make good investments, to increase your nest egg.

Even if you averaged $250K a year over the span of your work career, which for most people will last 50 years, it'll still take you 60 years to make that 15 million.

We're talking about LIFE CHANGING MONEY for some of these kids and their families.  Why should they play in a meaningless bowl game, if they have time to prep for the NFL combine and potentially make millions of dollars within the next 6 months? 

Save that "love of the game" crap for those of us who had no opportunity, or weren't talented enough to make millions playing the sports that we loved.  We're talking generational wealth for some of these kids and their families.

The only person enabling BS, is you. Typical old school fan entitlement.

[I disagree].   [I am [n]ot even [going to] respond [to the arguments here because I disagree so strongly.]   

[JeffS17]

8 hours ago, sturt said:

 

"The," I'm not sure.

But "one"... I just gave "one," of course.

 

Just a note, I think my communication at work is more clear after reading lots of your posts lol... some people (myself included) might see it as overly pedantic at times, but clear communication through text is a really undervalued skill.

[JeffS17]

8 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

I don't think it dies.  The new playoff is about to transform into "Winter March Madness".  It'll get even more crazy before it declines.

The big danger will be with NIL deals being more lucrative than rookie scale NFL and NBA contracts.  Then again, maybe that's what they want in order to keep kids in school as long as possible.

Coaches hate the transfer portal, because it gives kids ultimate control of where they want to play.  No longer are kids waiting 3 - 4 years to get their shot to play. They will go somewhere else in a heartbeat, and these coaches hate it.

But like I said in previous posts, as soon as these coaches are offered a nice bag of money, they'll leave those kids in a heartbeat.

Dies was a strong word but I do think CFB will start declining in popularity and the other major sports will close in on footballs popularity.  It's happened for me already (as I type this post, I actually do not know who won the playoff games yesterday) and a lot of people I know have gravitated towards either the NFL or just other sports in general.  I think the player empowerment movement is just one factor though.  I understand how we got here, but the older I get, the more I think "why is amateur football attached to higher education?" because it really doesn't make that much sense.  And now we have this odd reality where people consciously or unconsciously pick schools to attend for their education based on the football team, or more likely, name recognition of the school because of the football team.  Anyways, I've meandered well off topic here but it will definitely be interesting to see how things play out.  I'm not sure consolidation into a couple of giant mega conferences is the play, but we are in an era of short term decision making for $$$.

[AHF]

9 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

What about the coach who leaves his kids high and dry to take another job? What happens to coach?. Does he get punished financially too?

Punish a kid because he opts out of an exhibition bowl game that no one will care about in a week?

I'd love it if coaches weren't allowed to opt out and leave their team hanging for their bowl games.  Coaches have done some bad **** over the years and deserve criticism for it.  I don't think it makes the game better to have players doing similar things where they hurt their team and the quality of the games to further their careers like some of these coaches have done.

I'd also say that bowl games are not things no one cares about in a week.  They are the pinnacle of the season and are talked about by the team's fans for years when memorable even when they are completely unrelated to the championship game.  If they are treated as exhibitions that mean nothing a week later then the sport is in for a world of pain because it will reduce the importance of everything other than games for playoff and playoff contender teams.  It has historically mattered that you make the Orange Bowl rather than the Weed Wacker Bowl and whether you won mattered to the fans.  If we are in a post-bowl era now for all non-playoff teams and non-playoff games, college football is set to face a significant decline that will ripple across the entire sport including the TV deals for the schools and the NIL packages for the players.  They are only as rich as they are right now because interest in everything about the sport has been historically at a fever pitch. 

Nobody gives a crap about the Pro Bowl in the NFL because it is the type of exhibition game you describe above.  The Orange Bowl has never been that kind of game until FSU quit.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, shakes said:

[I disagree].   [I am [n]ot even [going to] respond [to the arguments here because I disagree so strongly.]   

It'll make you seem like you're anti-kid, if you did disagree strongly.

The entire system of major college football is almost solely driven by money.  Even these university Presidents don't act like playing an expanded playoff is bad for the student-athlete any more.  The lower divisions have been playing expanded playoffs for so long, even the big boys couldn't make that argument any longer.

To try to hold 18 - 22 year old kids to some sort of pure and amateur standard, when everybody around them are corrupt as hell, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

 

"Hey Antonio . . . you must play for the love of the game! 

Go to class.  Show up to practice.  Play in all the games.  And be thankful for the opportunity your school gave you. 

Don't ask for extra perks, because the university will provide your basic needs and give you a degree if you've earned it. 

And stick it out at the school who recruited you.  Don't hop from school to school.

Play for the love of the game, and for your teammates!"

 

"Also Antonio . . . don't look behind that curtain!

Don't listen to the rumors about your coach about to leave and take a job at a more prestigious program.

Don't pay attention to that same coach recruiting better players in the transfer portal, looking to replace you in the starting lineup.

Don't worry about your school leaving a conference and forcing your parents to travel cross country to see you in road games.   Just tell them to come to the home games.

And for God's sakes Antonio, don't worry about the money!  Your $5K NIL deal should be more than enough for a college kid like yourself.  The boosters need to concentrate on securing millions to pay our new head coach.

WE LOVE YOU ANTONIO!  ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT!   ( until you get hurt and you are of no use to us )"

Edited January 2 by TheNorthCydeRises

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I'd love it if coaches weren't allowed to opt out and leave their team hanging for their bowl games.  Coaches have done some bad **** over the years and deserve criticism for it.  I don't think it makes the game better to have players doing similar things where they hurt their team and the quality of the games to further their careers like some of these coaches have done.

I'd also say that bowl games are not things no one cares about in a week.  They are the pinnacle of the season and are talked about by the team's fans for years when memorable even when they are completely unrelated to the championship game.  If they are treated as exhibitions that mean nothing a week later then the sport is in for a world of pain because it will reduce the importance of everything other than games for playoff and playoff contender teams.  It has historically mattered that you make the Orange Bowl rather than the Weed Wacker Bowl and whether you won mattered to the fans.  If we are in a post-bowl era now for all non-playoff teams and non-playoff games, college football is set to face a significant decline that will ripple across the entire sport including the TV deals for the schools and the NIL packages for the players.  They are only as rich as they are right now because interest in everything about the sport has been historically at a fever pitch. 

Nobody gives a crap about the Pro Bowl in the NFL because it is the type of exhibition game you describe above.  The Orange Bowl has never been that kind of game until FSU quit.

 

I think bowl games that are not involved in the playoff, are more important for smaller programs or up and coming programs.

Liberty had a real chance to show that their 13 - 0 record in the regular season was legit, by going up against a top 10 program like Oregon. A lot of their fans made the trip to the Fiesta Bowl to cheer on their squad.  That was their chance to be the new "Boise State".

Even though they got smoked 45 - 6, an appearance in that game is very important for the school.

Having said that, Oregon QB Bo NIx had nothing to prove by hanging 5 TDs on Liberty.  And if he would've opted out of that game, I would've understood.  In fact, I say if Nix had a bad game vs Liberty, it could've hurt his draft stock a little.

For me, as a Tennessee alum, I'm not celebrating a Citrus Bowl win over Iowa.  I'm celebrating how good some of our young talent looked in that game, and already looking forward to next season. 

I'll say this again and leave it alone.  If people feel some type of way about the NFL prospects opting of these bowl games, just pay the kids to play in the game.  Because if one of them were to get hurt, there's not a single thing that a football fan can do for that kid.  We'll just say "awww . . . that's a shame that he got hurt", and move on to the next play in the game.

Edited January 2 by TheNorthCydeRises

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Because if one of them were to get hurt, there's not a single thing that a football fan can do for that kid.  We'll just say "awww . . . that's a shame that he got hurt", and move on to the next play in the game.

They are paid now between scholarships, etc. and the NIL payments.  But I understand you are probably making an argument to pay them more which I'm not opposed to but does invite questions on how that is done.  If it is treated like a minor league system then you have the issue of how much each kid is worth (i.e., in professional leagues players don't get the same pay - they get more based on talent and seniority) or it devolves into "scholarship plus" where everyone gets some amount for playing which I have a hard time thinking would be worth materially more to the player who wants to opt out to guard against injury.  I have no idea why a bowl game would be different than a conference championship or season kickoff game from this perspective but if you are ok with no pay for those but want to see pay for bowl games that could be a bit easier with equal pay for all based on the bowl game (i.e., the bigger the bowl the bigger the check).  

I think the clearer solution to the problem you are raising is the one I suggested earlier:  insurance.  Kids with no professional future would get some minimum baseline amount and the insurance companies would write policies for the ones with prospects.  Then if the kid gets hurt he gets a payout based on the injury just like anyone else covered by insurance and the payout for a kid who had a bright professional future whose career is ruined would be measured in the millions.  (Most college players will never make the NFL so they would not get insured like a no-brainer star such as Peyton Manning).  The schools who take home the money from the bowl games would obviously be the ones who should foot the bill for the insurance coverage.

With any of these suggestions or other permutations you could also draft it up in contract form to make sure people didn't abandon the team until the season was done without some repurcussion but it is doubtful that could simply be "they don't get the pay for that particular game" unless the pay for that particular game they are otherwise owed is really high.

Better act sooner than later though because if the FSU precedent becomes normalized you will see less money available to go around to the players, schools, and coaches because people will stop caring about anything other than the playoffs which means 99% of games are meaningless and seasons are devoid of meaning before they begin (such as Tennessee this year which was never going to be a true contender for the playoffs).  The money only maintains if interest maintains and that relies on there being more meaningful outcomes for a season beyond the playoff implications.  (The NBA has more than 50% of teams in the playoffs.  Next year college football will have less than 10% of teams in the playoffs and that is up from 3% this year).

[JeffS17]

33 minutes ago, AHF said:

They are paid now between scholarships, etc. and the NIL payments.  But I understand you are probably making an argument to pay them more which I'm not opposed to but does invite questions on how that is done.  If it is treated like a minor league system then you have the issue of how much each kid is worth (i.e., in professional leagues players don't get the same pay - they get more based on talent and seniority) or it devolves into "scholarship plus" where everyone gets some amount for playing which I have a hard time thinking would be worth materially more to the player who wants to opt out to guard against injury.  I have no idea why a bowl game would be different than a conference championship or season kickoff game from this perspective but if you are ok with no pay for those but want to see pay for bowl games that could be a bit easier with equal pay for all based on the bowl game (i.e., the bigger the bowl the bigger the check).  

I think the clearer solution to the problem you are raising is the one I suggested earlier:  insurance.  Kids with no professional future would get some minimum baseline amount and the insurance companies would write policies for the ones with prospects.  Then if the kid gets hurt he gets a payout based on the injury just like anyone else covered by insurance and the payout for a kid who had a bright professional future whose career is ruined would be measured in the millions.  (Most college players will never make the NFL so they would not get insured like a no-brainer star such as Peyton Manning).  The schools who take home the money from the bowl games would obviously be the ones who should foot the bill for the insurance coverage.

With any of these suggestions or other permutations you could also draft it up in contract form to make sure people didn't abandon the team until the season was done without some repurcussion but it is doubtful that could simply be "they don't get the pay for that particular game" unless the pay for that particular game they are otherwise owed is really high.

Better act sooner than later though because if the FSU precedent becomes normalized you will see less money available to go around to the players, schools, and coaches because people will stop caring about anything other than the playoffs which means 99% of games are meaningless and seasons are devoid of meaning before they begin (such as Tennessee this year which was never going to be a true contender for the playoffs).  The money only maintains if interest maintains and that relies on there being more meaningful outcomes for a season beyond the playoff implications.  (The NBA has more than 50% of teams in the playoffs.  Next year college football will have less than 10% of teams in the playoffs and that is up from 3% this year).

All these solutions are just band-aid attempts to return things to how they were for nostalgia sake.  If the players don't want to play in the bowl games, why force them to?  So we can pretend like they care about the game, their school, the schools legacy, etc?  I ask a similar question to fans who don't like that the players aren't academically focused or don't graduate.  Why would they be?  We're forcing them to enter school to play football, not the other way around.  The whole system is a broken mess and the façade of any academic focus has worn away.  The reality is there should probably just be a minor league football league where developing young adults play before they're eligible for the NFL, but it's nigh impossible to untangle the collegiate web, nor do people seem to want that.

[shakes]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

It'll make you seem like you're anti-kid, if you did disagree strongly.

The entire system of major college football is almost solely driven by money.  Even these university Presidents don't act like playing an expanded playoff is bad for the student-athlete any more.  The lower divisions have been playing expanded playoffs for so long, even the big boys couldn't make that argument any longer.

To try to hold 18 - 22 year old kids to some sort of pure and amateur standard, when everybody around them are corrupt as hell, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

 

"Hey Antonio . . . you must play for the love of the game! 

Go to class.  Show up to practice.  Play in all the games.  And be thankful for the opportunity your school gave you. 

Don't ask for extra perks, because the university will provide your basic needs and give you a degree if you've earned it. 

And stick it out at the school who recruited you.  Don't hop from school to school.

Play for the love of the game, and for your teammates!"

 

"Also Antonio . . . don't look behind that curtain!

Don't listen to the rumors about your coach about to leave and take a job at a more prestigious program.

Don't pay attention to that same coach recruiting better players in the transfer portal, looking to replace you in the starting lineup.

Don't worry about your school leaving a conference and forcing your parents to travel cross country to see you in road games.   Just tell them to come to the home games.

And for God's sakes Antonio, don't worry about the money!  Your $5K NIL deal should be more than enough for a college kid like yourself.  The boosters need to concentrate on securing millions to pay our new head coach.

WE LOVE YOU ANTONIO!  ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT!   ( until you get hurt and you are of no use to us )"

No, the pinnacle of hypocrisy is [the idea that players aren't at colleges to get everything they can out of them for their benefit].

 

you acting like the colleges just use these kids to make money and then spit them out without acknowledging that the “using” is happening on both sides with players using colleges in order to also make money =- PURE HYPOCRISY

 

Hey Antonio,

Congrats on raising your draft stock this year.  You did a great job taking advantage of the free access you had to best coaching in the country, state of the art facilities, very expensive training staff and treatment, a competitive schedule, etc etc etc etc.  BTW Antonio, do you know how we pay for all that stuff?   With money we earn for our school and athletic department.  And how do we earn that money you ask?  By playing games vs other colleges and having people pay a lot of money to watch those games in person and on TV.  Part of that money comes from being in Bowl games which can be quite lucrative to the schools involved.   All those facilities, coaches and trainers you took advantage of this semester?  Those were all paid for by the hard work of the players who came before you.   And what are you going to do for those athletes who follow in your footsteps?  Oh yea, you’re going to sit out the bowl game and give us less of a chance to win, hurt our exposure nationally to future recruits and in general hurt the product of College football which could/should eventually lead to people/TV networks spending less money on CFB and as a result our school will make less money and those guys coming after you won’t have the same advantages you had this year.

 

[ @shakes - knock off the insults ] 

[AHF]

54 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

All these solutions are just band-aid attempts to return things to how they were for nostalgia sake.  If the players don't want to play in the bowl games, why force them to?  So we can pretend like they care about the game, their school, the schools legacy, etc?  I ask a similar question to fans who don't like that the players aren't academically focused or don't graduate.  Why would they be?  We're forcing them to enter school to play football, not the other way around.  The whole system is a broken mess and the façade of any academic focus has worn away.  The reality is there should probably just be a minor league football league where developing young adults play before they're eligible for the NFL, but it's nigh impossible to untangle the collegiate web, nor do people seem to want that.

(1) Some players do still have pride and care about winning the bowl games.  In fact, I'd say most of them do if you are using numbers to evaluate that claim.  Even in the FSU / UGA game, the majority of the available starters for the two teams played.  The issue isn't that no one cares about the bowls anymore.  It is that a growing number of players don't care about them and this growing number is ruining the competitive landscape that sustains the entire sport of college football (which is extremely expensive to run relative to other sports).

(2) If you think the NFL is going to pick up the tab for a minor league I think you have another thing coming.  They could do this tomorrow but they don't want to do so and I think it extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.  Both the NFL owners and players enjoy more money as a result of not having to pay for a minor league development system so there is a systemic interest in maintaining college football from the professionals.

(3) If the FSU/quitter trend continues to pick up steam that will mean a smaller pie for all college football players and all college football programs so today's players will be hurting future ones.  I'm talking both NIL money and any other potential money for the players.   This is not strictly a players vs schools issue, however.  Both schools and players in the future will suffer if the integrity of the game (let's be clear I'm talking about competitive integrity not the faux amateur "integrity" that has been a joke the NCAA has played on fans) deteriorates which is where the bus is driving right now.

I have zero doubt interest in the regular season will significantly diminish if bowls become exhibitions of young guys who weren't good enough to play for most of the season.  I do think that is undesirable for everyone unless you want football to completely die.  It is not hard to come up with better systems where the players get more compensation and at best this will be a step towards that but that will have to come with a reversal of the current trend of guys opting out from the post-season if they have any notion of splitting the current pool of money.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

18 minutes ago, AHF said:

They are paid now between scholarships, etc. and the NIL payments.  But I understand you are probably making an argument to pay them more which I'm not opposed to but does invite questions on how that is done.  If it is treated like a minor league system then you have the issue of how much each kid is worth (i.e., in professional leagues players don't get the same pay - they get more based on talent and seniority) or it devolves into "scholarship plus" where everyone gets some amount for playing which I have a hard time thinking would be worth materially more to the player who wants to opt out to guard against injury.  I have no idea why a bowl game would be different than a conference championship or season kickoff game from this perspective but if you are ok with no pay for those but want to see pay for bowl games that could be a bit easier with equal pay for all based on the bowl game (i.e., the bigger the bowl the bigger the check).  

I think the clearer solution to the problem you are raising is the one I suggested earlier:  insurance.  Kids with no professional future would get some minimum baseline amount and the insurance companies would write policies for the ones with prospects.  Then if the kid gets hurt he gets a payout based on the injury just like anyone else covered by insurance and the payout for a kid who had a bright professional future whose career is ruined would be measured in the millions.  (Most college players will never make the NFL so they would not get insured like a no-brainer star such as Peyton Manning).  The schools who take home the money from the bowl games would obviously be the ones who should foot the bill for the insurance coverage.

With any of these suggestions or other permutations you could also draft it up in contract form to make sure people didn't abandon the team until the season was done without some repurcussion but it is doubtful that could simply be "they don't get the pay for that particular game" unless the pay for that particular game they are otherwise owed is really high.

Better act sooner than later though because if the FSU precedent becomes normalized you will see less money available to go around to the players, schools, and coaches because people will stop caring about anything other than the playoffs which means 99% of games are meaningless and seasons are devoid of meaning before they begin (such as Tennessee this year which was never going to be a true contender for the playoffs).  The money only maintains if interest maintains and that relies on there being more meaningful outcomes for a season beyond the playoff implications.  (The NBA has more than 50% of teams in the playoffs.  Next year college football will have less than 10% of teams in the playoffs and that is up from 3% this year).

Insurance is definitely the way to go initially.  What happened to Jake Butt absolutely sucks, with virtually no one properly taking care of him during his rookie season.  Once he got hurt, he was damaged goods.  And the NFL treated him as such.

But my point is to simply give the prospects money to play in the game.  The money is flying around everywhere.

Marvin Harrison Jr opting out of the Cotton Bowl, definitely hurt Ohio State's chances of winning that game vs Missouri.  They only scored 3 points.  But Harrison, when he declares for the NFL draft, is certain to be a top 5 pick.  If he gets hurt in that game, he's dropping to the bottom of the 1st round, if not out altogether.

If it's that important to the university, its fans and to casual football fans to see Harrison play in that kind of game, just drop him some money.

The expanded playoffs may be incentive for these guys to play in the postseason, because chasing that national championship will become priority #1. They probably need to develop some sort of tiered payout going to schools AND athletes, for each round they advance to.

But playing in bowl games with no playoff implications, in stadiums that are 50% - 75% full?  I don't know man.

 

If it is treated like a minor league system then you have the issue of how much each kid is worth (i.e., in professional leagues players don't get the same pay - they get more based on talent and seniority) or it devolves into "scholarship plus" where everyone gets some amount for playing which I have a hard time thinking would be worth materially more to the player who wants to opt out to guard against injury. 

 

Do it like we do everything else.  Create a NFL draft ranking system, in which the top prospects are ranked 1 - 100.  That would essentially cover the top 3 rounds of the draft. 

Have a set number already in place for each position, so that if they play in the postseason, they get ( X ) amount of dollars.  You could literally do it like the NFL slots their rookie contracts.  If I'm ESPN, and I'm worried about the quality of games, I'm encouraging a system where the top guys are given incentive pay to play in these games.

That's why I say, pay these guys 25% of what their signing bonuses would be, once they declare for the draft.  For your top 10 prospects, it would look something like this:

 

 

Is that too much?  What if we knocked it down to 15% of their projected signing bonus.

 

 

Would people be disturbed that we'd be paying individual players more than what an entire school/conference gets for getting to a bowl?

I say if those FSU players who opted out, knew exactly how much money they'd get for playing in a bowl, they would take that monetary amount into consideration when making their decision to play.

Here's what the bottom 10 would get.  Essentially your 3rd round picks.

 

 

If we go at 15% of projected signing bonus, the #100 prospect would get $128K to play in the postseason.

2 things to go over:

• Will ALL of the top 100 prospects be eligible to receive this money if they play in the postseason, even if they don't declare for the NFL draft?
• What happens to the rest of the signing bonus payout when a player is actually selected?

 

To the first point, I say you give ALL the kids the money, if they play in the postseason.  You could even possibly tie that into their NIL deal.  Consider that their reward for having an outstanding season.

To the 2nd point, it'll get a little tricky for a guy who, say, was a projected 3rd rd pick that fell all the way to the 6th round, and thus, would not get a signing bonus.  Do you require him to pay the projected signing bonus money back?  Nope.  He was considered to be a 100 player at the end of the year.  He should not be punished because he may have performed poorly in the combine and fell to the 5th round.  Once again, consider that "postseason signing bonus" a reward for his top level play.

 

Everything else in college football is being solved with money.  Might as well solve this with money as well.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

48 minutes ago, shakes said:

No, the pinnacle of hypocrisy is [the idea that players aren't at colleges to get everything they can out of them for their benefit].

 

you acting like the colleges just use these kids to make money and then spit them out without acknowledging that the “using” is happening on both sides with players using colleges in order to also make money =- PURE HYPOCRISY

I haven't read the rest of your post, but I wanted to stop right here and respond.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THESE COLLEGES ARE DOING. 

Only recently did these kids even have the leverage to gain anything monetarily while playing throughout their college career.  Only the top level guys were able to get paid, once they got to the NFL ( unless they were at a program that was paying some of these players under the table ).

College kids were broke as hell.  ( still are at the lower levels ).  NCAA rules pre-NIL were so tough, you had programs getting in trouble for buying a bus ticket home for a player, or some booster giving a kid a few hundred dollars to eat on during the semester.

You have multi-BILLION dollar media deals being negotiated around these 18 - 22 year old kids to play a sport. They're only getting a small percentage of the revenue that everyone is eating off of.

So yeah, it's hypocrisy to try to hold kids to some amateur standard, when everyone around them lives high off the hog. 

Now I can read the rest of your post and respond.

[AHF]

28 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Everything else in college football is being solved with money.  Might as well solve this with money as well.

I'm not opposed to that.  College footballs' administrators, coaches, athletic directors, etc. have been all about the money for a long time.  Where I think it gets challenging is coming up with a system that rewards everyone for participating in a bowl and simultaneously is enough money to get the players to stop opting out if they are doing it for financial reasons.  You know that is quickly coming to players on playoff teams as well.  It would have been unthinkable just a few years ago for any player to opt out of the Orange Bowl.  It would seem that way now for playoff teams but who gives a **** about your college playoffs when the real money doesn't come until the NFL.

Just to use a simple example of where I see the rub:

$5M payout for the bowl game

$1M in costs (hotels, food, etc.)

50% of net $4M = $2M

50 players participate in the game

Payout for the Players = $40,000 per player  (adjust that how you want but most NA professional sports roughly share 50% of net profits between owners and players)

 

$40k would be plenty for your average player but that doesn't mean much to the elite players if the player is focused on the downside risk to their NFL career.  So I see that as a windfall to most players who have no NFL future, a fair amount for the vast majority of players, but nothing that would keep the sports' best players in the game unless they signed a contract committing to play at the beginning of the year as part of the deal.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, shakes said:

Hey Antonio,

Congrats on raising your draft stock this year.  You did a great job taking advantage of the free access you had to best coaching in the country, state of the art facilities, very expensive training staff and treatment, a competitive schedule, etc etc etc etc.  BTW Antonio, do you know how we pay for all that stuff?   With money we earn for our school and athletic department.  And how do we earn that money you ask?  By playing games vs other colleges and having people pay a lot of money to watch those games in person and on TV.  Part of that money comes from being in Bowl games which can be quite lucrative to the schools involved.   All those facilities, coaches and trainers you took advantage of this semester?  Those were all paid for by the hard work of the players who came before you.   And what are you going to do for those athletes who follow in your footsteps?  Oh yea, you’re going to sit out the bowl game and give us less of a chance to win, hurt our exposure nationally to future recruits and in general hurt the product of College football which could/should eventually lead to people/TV networks spending less money on CFB and as a result our school will make less money and those guys coming after you won’t have the same advantages you had this year.

 

The players build these powerhouse programs. Coaches come and go, but the talent the players bring to the table is why people watch these games.  Alumni, boosters, and state governments get excited when their team becomes a perennial winner.  More money flows into the university when the team wins.  Great players + good to great coaching fosters winning. 

 

If anything, the FSU player boycott illustrates that the game is more about eyeballs to the TV sets, than the actual integrity of the game. 

The committee thought that team wasn't worthy, because their star QB got injured. Forget that the team overcame that adversity, won their conference championship, and still finished undefeated. 

To keep it real, adding FSU to the playoff mix meant that Alabama would have to be left out. No way would the committee leave the SEC champ out, so they screwed the undefeated conference champ.

It was a money decision made by the committee. 

The players responded with a middle finger to the entire process.

No one will cry for FSU, seeing that we had 2 outstanding semifinal games last night.

 

At the end of the day, people really don't care about how the players feel.  They only care about what the players can do for them and how they can make them feel when they are winning games for the university.  If you are a losing program, fans will tell you to kick rocks.  If you win too much, your own coach may tell the players ( in a nice way ) to kick rocks.  That's why that loyalty crap is out the window.

 

As for individual players opting out,

The legacy that Drake Maye left at UNC is not going to be tarnished because he opted out of the Duke's Mayo Bowl.  That kid did more to put UNC football back on the map, than any player since Lawrence Taylor.   UNC football is not going to be hurt because they lost to West Virginia in the Duke's Mayo Bowl.

The contribution that Joe Milton made to the Tennessee football team, is not going to be tarnished because he opted out of the Cheez-It Citrus Bowl.  He has carried himself very well during his time at the university.  The University of Tennessee is not going to be enhanced, because they beat a poor offensive Iowa team.  We will be enhanced because

Both guys are upstanding young men who were loyal to their programs, their teammates, and the fans.  Because they didn't play in their final collegiate game, doesn't mean that they are bad people or disloyal to the university.

[AHF]

34 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

To keep it real, adding FSU to the playoff mix meant that Alabama would have to be left out. No way would the committee leave the SEC champ out, so they screwed the undefeated conference champ.

It was a money decision made by the committee. 

The players responded with a middle finger to the entire process.

No one will cry for FSU, seeing that we had 2 outstanding semifinal games last night.

 

Not quite that simple.  Alabama played the nation's 6th toughest schedule.  FSU played the 55th toughest schedule. http://powerrankingsguru.com/college-football/strength-of-schedule.php

Alabama faced two top 6 teams and four top 14 teams in the final polls.  FSU faced zero top 14 teams.  A comparison simply by record is an apples to oranges comparison when one team never plays a top competitor and the other plays multiple top competitors.  

Computer generated power rankings had Alabama as the #4 team and FSU as the #9 team.  http://powerrankingsguru.com/college-football/team-power-rankings.php

On top of all that, FSU was hurt with a critical injury at the most important position and neither the first nor the second backup played well (which isn't factored into the power rankings but likely was a factor for the committee and I don't think the committee excludes them with their starting QB in the lineup).

So I am sympathetic to FSU with regard to the committee's decision above all because I definitely feel like using the historical bowl selection criteria they should have been there.  But picking the 4 "best" teams which is closer to the criteria of the committee in 2023 is more subjective and there were credible arguments for Alabama being one of the 4 best teams.  (This year controversy was inevitable, imo, but the safest choice would have been to exclude Alabama because of simple record and losing H2H against Texas even though Texas' loss was much worse and their best win wasn't any better.)