Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Husker Board' started by zrob, Jun 21, 2019.
college football socialism!
Yep, NFL has a salary cap. That is so the team with the most money can't get all the best players. Why should college football be any different?
I happen to fully agree schools should be paying their players under a salary cap, which would absolutely level the playing field for the best players.
but others, for absolutely zero good reason, are vehemently opposed because 'free school' should be enough. the most 'back in my day' argument ever.
Holy cow, you on this subject again.. Give it a rest we know your opinion on the subject, doesn’t mean we all of are have to agree with you.
ha after you like a post saying the same thing. do you disagree with the idea or just with me? either way, I don't care, but great if you're coming around to it!
Comparing the NFL to College Football has one problem the NFL doesn’t have to support Title9...
You understand if all the men’s programs have the benefit of being paid you also have to pay all the women’s teams as well..
I do understand this, and have very clearly stated that. I've never once heard a female athlete say they'd be opposed, and saying Title9 would stop this flies directly in the face of the legislation itself. Pay everyone for their services, obviously.
The only ones opposed are the schools getting rich and old fellas like you. The schools I get, it'd dig into their tax-free profits. You old guys, though, don't have a leg to stand on. Especially if you're in favor of leveling the playing field for the best recruits.
Glad we can agree
Count me in as one who thinks $100,000+ in free education and stuff is more than enough for 17-22 year old kids. Don't need to pay them in order to implement a "salary cap" a rankings cap would do the same thing. Instead of a dollar amount. Players are assigned a ranking value. Similar to how they are now. Every team has to keep under a total ranking value. So for instance 247 assigns a value to every player. Last year Alabama ended sitting at 317.50 with 27 recruits or 94.38 per player avg.
So lets say we implement a cap. Every team would have to stay under 250. South Carolina would be sitting under that 250 at 247.26 That has them at 23 recruits 1- 5 star and 5 4 stars 17 3 stars. Nebraska would have hit it too at 245.10 giving us 7 4 star and 21 3 star. Might need to be tweaked to 275. Whatever it may be it can be done pretty easily to help other teams have a chance.
lol @ your first statement, but that's neither here nor there
who's in charge of rankings? is there a sanctioning body? do we rely on the cringeworthy NCAA to oversee this? bernie sanders?
interesting idea, I suppose, though I do not think it's one you'd float if we were the rich getting richer, so to speak, with 5* recruits.
We aren't the rich getting richer. There are really only about 10-15 schools in all of college football who would qualify under that. Especially over the last 20-30 years. I don't know about anyone else but Im tired of see the same 5-10 teams at the top every single year. If these same teams can still get to the top with a recruiting cap, great they did it fair and square and with the same advantage/ disadvantages as all other teams.
33 of the top 50 from TOS have already committed.
30 of the top 50 from Rivals have already committed.
32 of the top 50 from ESPN have already committed.
uh, yea.. hence my comment.
60% or thereabout makes sense. plenty of meat left on the bone.
good post/info, thanks
Looks like 104 of the Rivals 250 are undecided (41.6%).
So same ratio? 60% committed.
Of course not, nobody is ever going to complain about getting the best end of the deal. Point is there is an obvious trend developing over the last decades. That trend by far favors teams in the south, particularly a select few. Until something is changed those same team will always always always have the advantage.
From 1999-2018 17 of those winners have been from a southern teams
From 1979-1998 - 13
From 1959- 1978 10
From 1939- 1958 7
weird that a sport solely operating on the backs of indentured servants has the most success in the South. who could've ever seen that coming.
Some group much smarter than you or I. Probably a average of different ranking services such and 247 or rivals.
Seriously? You aren't that ignorant I hope. Suggesting football success is a direct result of slavery is idiotic.
yea, I'm the ignorant one.........
Why do so many people on this board feel the need to respond to impotent Iowa fans? They're a meaningless program and fan base, why humor them?
Yes you are. You don't think it maybe has something to do with better climate, history, population density, compared to other more northern schools? You think it has more to do with slavery? lol
Topgun is an Iowa fan?
“Free” school, “free” stuff, “free” housing, “free” training. It’s enough! All in exchange for hard physical labor, making billions in profits for others while its illegal to ask for a taste.
They are being forced to do this or be killed?
Nah, he's definitely a Nebraska fan. Just curious why so many people let Iowa troll them on here...they are literally meaningless. Nobody cares about Iowa
That the only difference? Okay.
I’m ignorant, though. Mhmm. Real ignorant..
I have met some pretty delusional/ ignorant people in my life, you take the cake. Im out. No point in argue with idiotic.
Sort of a big difference though.
Indentured servitude. Look it up, my man.
I never said slavery, he did. It’s indentured servitude, by the book.
But what do I know I’m just ignorant
Except the signing of the contract isn’t forced. And the contract can be voided at anytime by the player And the contact cannot be sold to another school or entity. The you have the education, that 98% of the players that play college athletics, that don’t go pro, can use to better their lives for the next 60 years, if they choose to utilize it. Then you have the contacts, that the regular student body doesn’t have access to, just because you played football at university A.
LOIs are the only option, eligibility runs out if voided and the labor is sold (tv deals, endorsements, etc).
Education is not nothing, I agree. But it’s far from equitable compared to what’s given in exchange & what’s earned uncapped and untaxed.
Also, this is the answer to leveling the playing field with top recruits, like college football Bernie wants. A win-win.
Yep. Wonder what the decommit rate is for these top players.
agree, would be very interesting to see/track this somehow
wonder if there's a correlation between early commitment and decommitment, too. I guess it'd stand to reason those who commit early really are 'sold' more than those who wait, but then again who knows.
A player can walk away at anytime. They just don’t get to play football and get their education and all that comes with playing football or basketball for free. Now that there are stipends, P5 players aren’t even unpaid labor anymore.
No one is forcing these players into accepting these terms. They can sit out or go play semi-pro.
Probably the same as players who committed somewhere in September or October, then with a coaching change decide to go somewhere else. I said when they moved to an early signing period, That the cycle would just be moved back a couple months as well. So kids he would be committing in August and September are now committing in June and July. Kids committing in the summer isn’t really early, the quarterback in the 2020 class, has been committed for a year. That is what I would consider early
if a football player wants to pursue his career, or even exchange his service for a chance at a degree, he is forced to sign a non-negotiable contract (LOI), which stipulates what you said above. do this, or don't play anymore.
remind me, do the vast majority of NFL hopefuls come from places where they can either A.) pay for their own schooling and skirt the forced terms, or B.) just sit out, train on their own, wait 3 years and enter the draft on their own accord?
they don't have the option. there is no semi-pro league as an alternative.
in basketball, they do. baseball & soccer (men & women), too. and more and more top recruits are choosing to play pro ball elsewhere than participate in the NCAA's model.
I know this topic pisses people off so I'll stop, but I do like this conversation and find it very interesting, as I believe we are on the cusp of college football, and especially recruiting, changing very rapidly because of the dollars at stake. If anyone wants to keep talking, happy to do so on a different thread.
Sure they do, there are semi pro football leagues all over the country. It’s not my problem that these kids don’t come from backgrounds that allow them to workout or whatever. If a kid from the same background is a academic scholar, he goes to school under the same agreement he can leave whenever he wants, he just doesn’t get the perks of living in the dorms and going to school for free. He doesn’t get the opportunity to get published with the assistance of the school, or participate in studies that will assist him in his future. Someone is paying for his education, they set the ground rules, you either play by them or go do something else.
No offense to Adrian Martinez or Maurice Washington or anyone else, but people were selling out Memorial Stadium in 1963, they didn’t make the sport popular. If every top 100 football player went on to some minor league, college football would still be popular. When top high school players went directly to the NBA, college basketball was still popular. The players rotate out, only the name stays the same. That is why I call BS on the paying of players. If they pay the players of today, then they need to pay all of the players or their descendants the same amount. As I said, the players of today didn’t make the sport popular why should they reap the rewards. The schools that continued to fund programs that didn’t make a dime or made very little should get the benefit. Now if the schools all get together and decide to pay the players, then that is fine. Until then you can either play by the rules or don’t play.
Thanks, this tread is being derailed from the original Post..