NCAA To Consider a CFB Salary Cap

[Fightinibis]

as a follow up, help me out - when were winners and losers not impacted by money? weren’t the big budget teams always the strong teams, more or less?

any state school in the country could go all in if it wanted.

the big budgets aren’t the thing. it’s mistaken. the thing that’s changed is the same as other industries - technology shrunk the world, so the advantages some schools have are magnified many fold. ohio staye and alabama can recruit more broadly, evaluate better and faster, and kids can more easily learn about far away places, meet kids who will go there, network on social media etc

schools spend more on support today because there’s a return on it technology makes it easier to scout and plan and collaborate and analyze.

all that is inevitable. the one thing that isn’t is the playoff format. that’s the thing people should take aim at. changing the dynamic would change everything competitively. meanwhile no salary cap will do anything under current playoff rules.

Bingo. The 16 team bracket, this year anyway, as laid out would have at least, in a one year way, somewhat even out the playing field.

We took advantage of a space in time where we out worked everyone, had as close of a monopoly on speed as you could in the Country, and had solid coaching the likes of top tier state schools. Facilities? Didn’t matter...we worked harder.

Now, the all in state school mentality with $$$, coaches, recruits, boosters, etc. place private schools like us at an automatic disadvantage from the jump. Add in a somewhat complacent attitude from your BOT and AD, tough to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

[HamburgerSV]

You literally just described socialism, and labeled it capitalism. *SMH*

No, socialism is salary caps and giving the top picks to teams with bad records to try to level the playing field *SMH*. I get it dude you’re one of those extremists who has been taught “everything bad is socialism” so I understand why you didn’t get it

 

[HamburgerSV]

I hate this mentality so much

Yea I hate when people in power or on top Leverage that power to their benefit. They’re just playing the system so I’m not that mad at them it’s the system that needs small changes

 

[Ethnicsands]

It's one of the few things that might work. Put a limit on the number of total staff and limit total staff expenditures to say $7MM or $10MM.

QP opposes rent control.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Capitalism shouldn't apply to sports from the standpoint of on-the-field competition.

Lmao

QP worked at J.p. morgan as a young man, iirc

 

[Ethnicsands]

The best argument can be made that CFB (on the field) was a free market system entirely up until scholarship restrictions. It's certainly not in terms of resources -- it's an oligopoly in every sense.

Really?

 

[Ethnicsands]

Yea I hate when people in power or on top Leverage that power to their benefit. They’re just playing the system so I’m not that mad at them it’s the system that needs small changes

You do not sound smart. Maybe you get your information from CNN.

Your quote: ‘Right now college football is like capitalism. The rich leverage their richness to get richer, make it harder for anyone to reach their level and to not have to abide by the same rules everyone else has to (they don’t get punished the same way).’

That’s your perception of capitalism. You basically describe a corrupt system that doles out power and benefits to selected constituencies. That’s literally socialism, the world over.

Capitalism isn’t what you’ve been brainwashed to think. Capitalism is the opposite of the centrally planned corruption you described.

 

[Ethnicsands]

If only we had more regulation, we’d have more competition.

If only the government regulated speech, we’d have free elections.

 

[PalyCane]

as a follow up, help me out - when were winners and losers not impacted by money? weren’t the big budget teams always the strong teams, more or less?

any state school in the country could go all in if it wanted.

the big budgets aren’t the thing. it’s mistaken. the thing that’s changed is the same as other industries - technology shrunk the world, so the advantages some schools have are magnified many fold. ohio staye and alabama can recruit more broadly, evaluate better and faster, and kids can more easily learn about far away places, meet kids who will go there, network on social media etc

schools spend more on support today because there’s a return on it technology makes it easier to scout and plan and collaborate and analyze.

all that is inevitable. the one thing that isn’t is the playoff format. that’s the thing people should take aim at. changing the dynamic would change everything competitively. meanwhile no salary cap will do anything under current playoff rules.

Ok I'm getting it now. College football has existed throughout it's history as a completely free market system. There have never been rules implemented to promote a competitive balance. There is no limit on roster sizes, or coaching staff numbers. That's all been a figment of my imagination. And to create any rule to improve competitive balance would be (a) unprecedented, and (b) remove the sport from the world of Adam Smith where it's existed since inception.

 

[PalyCane]

QP opposes rent control.

How could I haven't gotten it so wrong going all the way back to grade school when we took turns picking sides for dodgeball in order to have an even contest.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Ok I'm getting it now. College football has existed throughout it's history as a completely free market system. There have never been rules implemented to promote a competitive balance. There is no limit on roster sizes, or coaching staff numbers. That's all been a figment of my imagination. And to create any rule to improve competitive balance would be (a) unprecedented, and (b) remove the sport from the world of Adam Smith where it's existed since inception.

That’s unlike you as a response. It’s befitting of the simpler folks here. You know I didn’t make the claims you are trying to put into my mouth, and you also know that your logical approach is weak. The existence of some regulations isn’t a rationale for massively more regulations, here or anywhere. Moreover, you don’t have any reason in the world to think the regulations you propose would do what you intend them to. Which makes this just like every regulatory discussion ever, I guess.

You’re not proposing to ‘create any rule’ to ‘address competitive balance.’. That’s a nonsensical concept. You’re making a specific proposal, which illegality aside you’ve made no logical argument to explain how it would address the problem you are focused on.

Why don’t you define the actual problem you’re trying to solve, how the regulations are narrowly tailored to address it, and why they’ll work.

Is the problem ‘competitive balance’? How do you measure that? How do you show it’s worse now than previously? Why do you focus on staff salaries as the fix? Do you have evidence they’re the cause? Or that focusing on them would effect a fix?

I’m pretty sure the empirical work you were trained to do would undermine the narrative people have here.

- Outside of Alabama, there’s been no consolidation in titles. There may have been a narrowing of the final four.

- The playoff rules have shrunk the season conclusion from ten teams aiming at the top 5 to five teams, basically (final four plus highest other team). That alone explains what may be a narrowing of the final four. Conference dynamics also factor in here. Clemson and OSU are really alone in their conferences at this time.

- There is no reason at all to think staff spending is the problem or a potential fix.

- Everyone seems to agree players will keep getting paid.

- QP says himself Saban’s a master and earned his results.

I’m not sure why folks are falling all over themselves to attempt to punish successful programs. The whole thing sounds emotional and weak.

 

[Ethnicsands]

How could I haven't gotten it so wrong going all the way back to grade school when we took turns picking sides for dodgeball in order to have an even contest.

Should a landlord agree not to evict a delinquent tenant, in order to have an ‘even contest’?

Your grade school recess game was not commercial activity, not work, and was consensual. What you’re really trying to defend is you picking everyone’s teams for them, telling them what shoes they can’t wear, and then telling them to pound sand if they don’t like it.

 

[PalyCane]

That’s unlike you as a response. It’s befitting of the simpler folks here. You know I didn’t make the claims you are trying to put into my mouth, and you also know that your logical approach is weak. The existence of some regulations isn’t a rationale for massively more regulations, here or anywhere. Moreover, you don’t have any reason in the world to think the regulations you propose would do what you intend them to. Which makes this just like every regulatory discussion ever, I guess.

You’re not proposing to ‘create any rule’ to ‘address competitive balance.’. That’s a nonsensical concept. You’re making a specific proposal, which illegality aside you’ve made no logical argument to explain how it would address the problem you are focused on.

Why don’t you define the actual problem you’re trying to solve, how the regulations are narrowly tailored to address it, and why they’ll work.

Is the problem ‘competitive balance’? How do you measure that? How do you show it’s worse now than previously? Why do you focus on staff salaries as the fix? Do you have evidence they’re the cause? Or that focusing on them would effect a fix?

I’m pretty sure the empirical work you were trained to do would undermine the narrative people have here.

- Outside of Alabama, there’s been no consolidation in titles. There may have been a narrowing of the final four.

- The playoff rules have shrunk the season conclusion from ten teams aiming at the top 5 to five teams, basically (final four plus highest other team). That alone explains what may be a narrowing of the final four. Conference dynamics also factor in here. Clemson and OSU are really alone in their conferences at this time.

- There is no reason at all to think staff spending is the problem or a potential fix.

- Everyone seems to agree players will keep getting paid.

- QP says himself Saban’s a master and earned his results.

I’m not sure why folks are falling all over themselves to attempt to punish successful programs. The whole thing sounds emotional and weak.

You would seem to be taking great offense at the suggestion to limit total staff size. Coaching staff size is limited. Roster size is limited. But total staff size cannot? Why?

 

[PalyCane]

Should a landlord agree not to evict a delinquent tenant, in order to have an ‘even contest’?

Your grade school recess game was not commercial activity, not work, and was consensual. What you’re really trying to defend is you picking everyone’s teams for them, telling them what shoes they can’t wear, and then telling them to pound sand if they don’t like it.

For your point to be valid college football would need to eliminate max roster sizes, recruiting class sizes and coaching staff size. Since you're a purest on this subject you need to be all in. Do away with all rules regarding the foregoing limits, correct? That's what you're advocating for. Or else you really don't have a point.

 

[Ethnicsands]

You would seem to be taking great offense at the suggestion to limit total staff size. Coaching staff size is limited. Roster size is limited. But total staff size cannot? Why?

I didn’t take exception to it, in part because it seems so weird it’s hard to take seriously. I specifically commented on the spending topic, and the overall legality. I have no idea why you’d want to limit the support resources a school provides to student athletes, not how you could in practicality. But if that’s your goal, have at it.

Roster size in truth is limited more by Title IX than anything - schools can’t increase football scholarships without cutting other men’s scholarships in other sports. I personally think the roster limits actually help big schools, but that’s another topic for another day.

 

[Ethnicsands]

For your point to be valid college football would need to eliminate max roster sizes, recruiting class sizes and coaching staff size. Since you're a purest on this subject you need to be all in. Do away with all rules regarding the foregoing limits, correct? That's what you're advocating for. Or else you really don't have a point.

You keep trying the weak argument that any regulation at all means all regulations are somehow both justified and effective. You know better than that.

But to your point, yes, I would support getting rid of roster limits and all the things you note. I am confident that dynamic equilibrium would work here as elsewhere. It would be a lot easier to recruit against Alabama if they had 125 kids waiting for the same 22 starting spots.

 

[PalyCane]

I didn’t take exception to it, in part because it seems so weird it’s hard to take seriously.

Limiting total staff size is weird, but limiting (a) coaching staff numbers, (b) limiting total roster sizes, and (c) limiting recruiting class sizes is not weird.

Ok

 

[PalyCane]

You keep trying the weak argument that any regulation at all means all regulations are somehow both justified and effective. You know better than that.

But to your point, yes, I would support getting rid of roster limits and all the things you note. I am confident that dynamic equilibrium would work here as elsewhere. It would be a lot easier to recruit against Alabama if they had 125 kids waiting for the same 22 starting spots.

OK I think we've gotten to the bottom of it. You would support the elimination of roster sizes, recruiting classes sizes and coaching staff numbers. If that's your view, then yes you would disagree with a proposal to limit total staff size. That's consistent. Got it.

I disagree for the reasons mentioned in earlier posts.

 

[Number1CanesFan]

The NCAA is, amazingly, correct about this. But why now to care? Is it because someone in the organization finally realized that having one team from the southeast play another team from the southeast almost every year in the championship isn’t good for a national sport? If so, you have to do a lot more than limit payments to players. Though its a good place to start (and push those payments right back under the table).
Frankly, I think a salary cap on head coaches would be more impactful But that will never happen because coaches won’t allow it. Just limit what the kids can receive, right?

I think a salary cap on the coaching staffs would help in the competitve balance. It is also a realization of the vulnerabilities in revenue that Covid-19 has shown given the guaranteed contracts that coaches have

Theoretically, like the NFL cap on players salaries bring competive balance, College teams like Alabama couldn't stack their coaching staffs and all the "analysts they have." It would also degrage the staff if the hc has a huge contract. It would force some of the athletic departments to make some tough decisions.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Limiting total staff size is weird, but limiting (a) coaching staff numbers, (b) limiting total roster sizes, and (c) limiting recruiting class sizes is not weird.

Ok

I can live with the roster and recruiting rules we have but i do not think they help us at all. all the pro regulate types can’t wrap their mind around the idea that the effect of regulations isn’t always (or even often) what the subjective intent of the people who passed the regulation had.

limiting ICs has made it even harder for UM to have a full roster. I have no idea why people think it helps us. I get the pros and cons on the 85 man limit but IMO it doesn’t help us either.