forums

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

Advertisement
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...

Operating costs for football are significantly higher.
 
CaneInHeelCountry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Roster size requirements alone make a minor league large enough to replace CFB completely unaffordable.
 
CaneInHeelCountry said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think previous attempts at creating new football leagues have shown us that people don't care to watch football outside of the NFL and NCAA. For example, in arena football there are over 50 defunct franchises in just 30 years or so. I mean, the AAF didn't even last three months.
 
Canes1968 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Small minds think small thoughts.

There are 256 players drafted each year. How many developmental teams would be necessary to support that number?

It's not as big and massive as you claim it to be. You have no figures or imperical data to support your theory. You are just talking out of your ***.

I have provided a link supporting the notion of a league.You don't have to replace every college that only sends one player to the eague every blue moon.

What you will have are "super" teams, which would be made up of the highest ranked players coming out of high school.

And with fewer people playing football each year, the current cfb model will collapse.

Some people are visionaries and can see the future. Others like yourself are like sheep and follow the herd.
 
miamicanephins said:
Small minds think small thoughts.

There are 256 players drafted each year. How many developmental teams would be necessary to support that number?

It's not as big and massive as you claim it to be. You have no figures or imperical data to support your theory. You are just talking out of your ***.

I have provided a link supporting the notion of a league.You don't have to replace every college that only sends one player to the eague every blue moon.

What you will have are "super" teams, which would be made up of the highest ranked players coming out of high school.

And with fewer people playing football each year, the current cfb model will collapse.

Some people are visionaries and can see the future. Others like yourself are like sheep and follow the herd.
Click to expand...

So only 256 kids will be playing minor league football in a particular season? Tell that to the 11,000 kids who are currently on FBS football scholarship.
 
Advertisement
Canes1968 said:
Not high enough to offset the higher costs. As such, subsidies from the NFL would be required and those subsidies would be unaffordable.
Click to expand...


Dude, you have zero stats or proof to back up what you're saying. It's like you're just pulling random **** outta the sky. Roster size?
PanamaCityCanes said:
I think previous attempts at creating new football leagues have shown us that people don't care to watch football outside of the NFL and NCAA. For example, in arena football there are over 50 defunct franchises in just 30 years or so. I mean, the AAF didn't even last three months.
Click to expand...

That's because there exists NCAA football. With both NFL and big-time CFB as we know it, there is little need for a minor league, and little fan interest.

If big-time CFB were to go away or to be curbed--by, say, the best talent skipping school and heading to the minor league, and by making coaching salaries commensurate with other university staff--there'd be a much greater chance that people would gravitate toward a sustainable minor league system.

Look at college baseball as an example.
 
CaneInHeelCountry said:
If big-time CFB were to go away or to be curbed--by, say, the best talent skipping school and heading to the minor league, and by making coaching salaries commensurate with other university staff--there'd be a much greater chance that people would gravitate toward a sustainable minor league system.
Click to expand...

Well, you have zero stats to prove or back up what you're saying. I, on the other hand, have shown that people don't want new football leagues.
 
PanamaCityCanes said:
So only 256 kids will be playing minor league football in a particular season? Tell that to the 11,000 kids who are currently on FBS football scholarship.
Click to expand...
More will be playing obviously.

The 256 numbet was to counter the notion that this developmental league was some huge insurmountable concept. Which it is not.
 
Just a matter of time college players will get paid .Problem with that is prior players will want their cut too.sad part is college athletics as we know it now will change.for better or worse that remains to be seen.one thing that's obvious small market teams will cease to exist.
 
PanamaCityCanes said:
Well, you have zero stats to prove or back up what you're saying. I, on the other hand, have shown that people don't want new football leagues.
Click to expand...

I was quoting cane1968, who threw out random excuses about roster size and nfl subsidies that have no grounding in fact.

I agree that people haven’t supported minor league football to date. But again, you’re looking at things within a paradigm that wouldn’t exist if football were treated like baseball is currently.
 
Canes1968 said:
With all this talk about pay for play, I think people are confusing who the real villain is in this scheme. Sure, the NCAA isn't perfect, but they are far from being the real villain. The REAL villain is the NFL. The NFL benefits from the college system more than anybody else. The college system is a free farm league for the NFL without which, the NFL simply could not exist. Unlike other sports where minor leagues and developmental leagues can be maintained at relatively low cost, football requires enormous amounts of overhead, and as such, the NFL could not possibly afford to build a robust minor league of the size and quality necessary to maintain quality of play for 32 teams. They are entirely dependent on the free farm system that the NCAA provides. They offer no financial support to the system, while sitting back and reaping the overwhelming majority of the benefits, and they are perfectly content with all the sheep that believe its really the NCAA that is ******** everybody over.

If anybody should be paying college football players, it should be the NFL.

And, before anybody gets it twisted, college football could and would survive without the NFL. College football doesn't need the NFL, but the NFL certainly does need college football.
Click to expand...
Pay for play ain't the problem. Bias is. I got no truck with these kids getting paid. My beef is the NCAA and it's selective enforcement. Bama and other SEC schools cheat in plain sight, kids flashing cash and cars, entire families being relocated and family members offered jobs yet the ncaa won't do **** yet tried to give us the death penalty over a few drinks, and dinners. Miss me with this NCAA ain't the problem crap
 
Advertisement
miamicanephins said:
I have no idea what the number would be.

But we all know there are some kids who are on college team's that really don't need to be there.
Click to expand...

Not sure why anyone would ever be in favor of the idea of telling thousands of kids that college sports are no longer available to them.
 
miamicanephins said:
Small minds think small thoughts.

There are 256 players drafted each year. How many developmental teams would be necessary to support that number?

It's not as big and massive as you claim it to be. You have no figures or imperical data to support your theory. You are just talking out of your ***.

I have provided a link supporting the notion of a league.You don't have to replace every college that only sends one player to the eague every blue moon.

What you will have are "super" teams, which would be made up of the highest ranked players coming out of high school.

And with fewer people playing football each year, the current cfb model will collapse.

Some people are visionaries and can see the future. Others like yourself are like sheep and follow the herd.
Click to expand...

LOL...no, so many obvious flaws in your analysis, it’s ridiculous. Tell me, if we eliminate CFB, and we just create these developmental super teams you describe that are made up of just the highest rated kids coming out of high school, how do you think high school football survives at a robust enough level to even support these developmental super teams? As you already acknowledged (thus defeating your own argument), there would be fewer people playing football each year. You don’t think that would impact the quality of athlete coming out of high school? It absolutely would. More of the top prep athletes would focus on other sports instead.

Also, the article you linked talked about the possibility of a developmental league, one that would supplement what CFB provides, not one that could replace what CFB provides. It also acknowledges that their previous attempts at other leagues have resulted in miserable failures.

Some people have critical thinking skills. Others, like yourself, are incapable of applying logic and developing arguments that don’t immediately collapse upon themselves.
 
True ballers go to the developmental league, guys that just want to play football for the college experience, do just that.
 
Back
Top