forums

Re: Pay for Play...the NCAA is not the villain

Advertisement
Andrew said:
Actually the cost isn't that high at all. Remember football teams don't play more than 16 games per year, so the cost of travel would be a lot less than a minor league baseball team. Stadiums are funded through local taxes. Also, a minor league football team would not have to reimburse tuition and pay for the academic staff.
Click to expand...

The cost would still be WAY too high. The NFL needs every bit of the breadth and depth of the existing college system to maintain it’s quality of play. You simply couldn’t replicate that in a cost effective way. You still need huge volumes of athletes that need to be developed physically and mentally and those costs are huge.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
Of course tradition is a rational argument. Competitive sports are a part of the scholastic experience because that is where sports originally started.

Exhibit A:
en.wikipedia.org

History of basketball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The history of basketball began with its invention in 1891 in Springfield, Massachusetts by Canadian physical education instructor James Naismith as a less injury-prone sport than football. The game became established fairly quickly and grew very popular as the 20th century progressed, first in America and then in other parts of the world. After basketball became established in American colleges, the professional game followed.

This echoes the growth pattern of football, where the college game predates professional football by 50 years or more.

What is sport without tradition? It's just a pointless, meaningless game.
Click to expand...
A ******* Canadian invented basketball?
 
ALLoverCANE said:
I don't think that at all. It will 100% be used to recruit, I agree. So what? What are you scared of? The schools will compete against each other. The result of that competition is unpredictable, but will lead to the best possible outcome. That is how free markets work.

1) Schools (and boosters) don't have unlimited resources. No single school will get every player that they want...
1a) ...at least not any more than they do today. There is no, and has never been, any parity in college football. This isn't a US professional sport where the rules are designed so that every team wins every so often.

2) Schools will get creative. They will offer different packages that will appeal to some kids more than others. Maybe Miami offers a kid a music internship with Chad Thomas or something. Schools will pick which kids to go all-in on, looking for competitive advantages wherever they can find them. Shoe companies (and other companies, for that matter) will get involved, pushing kids to different schools. Nike won't get everyone, just like they don't get everyone now. A shoe company you've never heard of will come out of nowhere with a huge offer to get a kid to go to a surprising school. Etc.

I've heard others make the point about every offseason becoming free agency, with kids hopping from team to team after every season. This doesn't happen in professional sports, and it won't happen in college football. A booster won't want to pay a kid to go to a school for 1 year. Again, the market will sort this out. One possible solution is that boosters offer deferred contracts that only pay out after X years. Kids will hate that, and smaller schools might roll the dice and attract top talent on short-term contracts, while the big schools fill up on 3 or 4 year kids. Maybe schools then decide to stop offering 4 year scholarships. Or, maybe kids accept those deferred payouts, but borrow against them.

In any case, I'm surprised at the complete lack of faith in, or understanding of, markets. The idea is not that we have all of the answers on day 1, but that market forces determine the answers over time - and that those answers are much better than anything we could've come up with at the onset. When there is such overwhelming demand for a product (like there is for college football), and no structural limitations on its supply, the market will find a solution that allows that product to thrive.

College football will look different than it does today, sure. I don't know what it will look like. But I do know that it will be better in the future than it is today.
Click to expand...

You are probably right about the markets here, but I suspect this will turn off a lot of the CFB fan base and significantly negatively impact the popularity and therefore money the sport brings in.
 
Canes1968 said:
The cost would still be WAY too high. The NFL needs every bit of the breadth and depth of the existing college system to maintain it’s quality of play. You simply couldn’t replicate that in a cost effective way. You still need huge volumes of athletes that need to be developed physically and mentally and those costs are huge.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t actually. You don’t need a $200M weight room. You don’t need a 100,000 seat stadium. You basically need what the XFL will have.
 
Andrew said:
It doesn’t actually. You don’t need a $200M weight room. You don’t need a 100,000 seat stadium. You basically need what the XFL will have.
Click to expand...

You need what the XFL will have on a much, much larger scale. You need a huge number of athletes.

Btw...the XFL will fail miserably.
 
Andrew said:
It doesn’t actually. You don’t need a $200M weight room. You don’t need a 100,000 seat stadium. You basically need what the XFL will have.
Click to expand...

Said another way, for precisely one of the reasons you mentioned (fewer games per season per team) an NFL minor league would needs a significantly larger number of teams. What does that do? It increases the number of games and the number of athletes and the costs to a level that is not affordable for the NFL.
 
Canes1968 said:
The cost would still be WAY too high. The NFL needs every bit of the breadth and depth of the existing college system to maintain it’s quality of play. You simply couldn’t replicate that in a cost effective way. You still need huge volumes of athletes that need to be developed physically and mentally and those costs are huge.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I provided a link showing where the NFL was planning a developmental league.

You've only provided opinion and conjecture, you have no data to back up your nonsense.

Just stop already.
 
Advertisement
TimeB0mb said:
The 18 year old can make that choice for himself. If the law says an 18 year old is an adult, can vote, and buy cigarettes, then a pro league should not be allowed to prevent adults (18 or older) from trying to make a living, no matter how many years he is out of high school.
Click to expand...
I have no love for the NFL, but I fail to see why they can't make their own rules. You're comparing government rules with who a business chooses to hire.
 
Canes1968 said:
LOL...no it couldn’t. It’s basic economics. Because of the size of rosters in the NFL, the shear volume of minor league teams required to feed the NFL would be cost prohibitive. The NFL couldn’t afford it, and they wouldn’t get much help from revenues this league would produce because nobody would watch that ****, just like nobody watches any other minor leagues in this country.

Think about it. There are hundreds of schools feeding the current NFL system and thousands of players. The NFL couldn’t afford to subsidize a system robust enough for their needs.
Click to expand...
Yet somehow Major League Baseball can afford to run a huge farm system with multiple levels of play. Every team has 3, plus rookie and instructional league teams. The NFL absolutely is getting a free ride here.
 
PanamaCityCanes said:
No, they really don't. You have some small towns that support the local team, but for the most part, minor league baseball attendance is abysmal.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I mean, sure it depends on the level. Single-A clubs aren't raking in the attendance numbers...but then their cost of operations is exceedingly low.

Most Triple-A teams average 5-10k per game, which is pretty darn good. Particularly when compared to an MLB team like the Marlins.
 
CaneInHeelCountry said:
Not really.

I mean, sure it depends on the level. Single-A clubs aren't raking in the attendance numbers...but then their cost of operations is exceedingly low.

Most Triple-A teams average 5-10k per game, which is pretty darn good. Particularly when compared to an MLB team like the Marlins.
Click to expand...

That's not bad in isolation, but the context here is that college football players want to rake in the "billions" they have been generating for the universities. Once those guys realize that (1) there are cuts in minor league football, and (2) they're barely making enough money to pay for rent and food, those scholarships and full stadiums will suddenly look more enticing than the minor league football game with 5-10,000 people.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
The NFL is a business. The NCAA is a business. I don’t see how the NFL should bear the burden of paying people who are not employed by their business.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • FA9758A0-CC41-4CDC-B16D-ECC0B1734FF4.webp
    FA9758A0-CC41-4CDC-B16D-ECC0B1734FF4.webp
    56.3 KB · Views: 1
miamicanephins said:
Wrong.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I provided a link showing where the NFL was planning a developmental league.

You've only provided opinion and conjecture, you have no data to back up your nonsense.

Just stop already.
Click to expand...

You've provided zero data to support your view. It's a simple fact. If CFB didn't exist, the NFL could not afford a developmental league or minor league large enough and robust enough to support its needs. Sorry bud, but you clearly have zero concept of finance and economics.

Since you are clearly missing some brain cells, there is a huge difference between the NFL planning a developmental league as a supplement for what CFB provides and the NFL being able to afford something that could replace what CFB provides. Simply put, the NFL could not afford to replace what CFB provides.
 
PanamaCityCanes said:
That's not bad in isolation, but the context here is that college football players want to rake in the "billions" they have been generating for the universities. Once those guys realize that (1) there are cuts in minor league football, and (2) they're barely making enough money to pay for rent and food, those scholarships and full stadiums will suddenly look more enticing than the minor league football game with 5-10,000 people.
Click to expand...

I think that's stretching the bounds of the argument. First, football at all levels generally attracts more attendance than baseball at corresponding levels. Baseball's 140+ game schedule (for the minors, 162 for the majors) and weekday games makes it such that attendance--particularly outside the MLB--isn't ever going to approximate a 12-16 game season with weekend-only games.

As with any minor league system, one for football would be tiered, so there would be a top level that could likely afford to pay players 100k or more. 2nd tier likely around 50-60k or more; bottom tier/D-league at 25-30k.
 
blushrts said:
Yet somehow Major League Baseball can afford to run a huge farm system with multiple levels of play. Every team has 3, plus rookie and instructional league teams. The NFL absolutely is getting a free ride here.
Click to expand...

The cost of the MLB farm system is small compared to what it would cost to develop a farm system the NFL. In essence, the NFL would need to build something as large and robust as what we see in CFB today. It may not need to cost as much as the current CFB system, but any significant differences would have dramatically negative impacts on the quality of talent coming out of this system.
 
Back
Top