Deep Creek
Well-Known Member
Long before 1999-2006...I wish we could go back to just college football circa 1999-2006 rules, where players could work at car dealerships.
Long before 1999-2006...I wish we could go back to just college football circa 1999-2006 rules, where players could work at car dealerships.
I'm not sure how any of those change the game? Those are all things that could be worked out in negotiations with any player's union that exists. And I'm also pretty sure scholarships will be part of their compensation for playing. You can say "if you're getting paid you shouldn't get a scholarship" until you're blue in the face, but that won't probably be a realistic outcome. Kids are removed from teams, removed from scholarships, greyshirted as is. I'm sure schools would find loopholes just hte same to "fire" a kid but I doubt it would be viewed as being fired.
Most likely you'll see some sort of revenue share in the next couple of decades; combined with scholarships, housing, and food that they already get. Along with what's coming, the ability to make money on likeness. I'm not sure how title IX would come into play, but I'm not sure it would violate Title IX to say "Athletes get 25% equally split of revenue generated by their own sport, all athletes get 10% of the overall AD revenue". If your sport gets no revenue you don't get paid. Pretty simple actually.
Why. It’s equal pay.WOW, that last few sentences is really sexist. I’m appalled. You’re disgusting.
Why. It’s equal pay.
If a women’s sport doesn’t make money you don’t get paid is one of the most terrible things ever. Women have feelings too!
Equality is a bitch.
A friend of mine from high school played big-time college basketball in the ACC. They arranged their classes so they took a heavy load in the fall quarter (yes, it was quarters back then), almost nothing during the winter (aka the season) and half-load in the spring (tourney time) then summer to make up the difference.Won't be over, just changed. I don't think if players start getting paid, start getting more medical insurance, maybe even take fewer classes, that it really changes much. Most of that stuff is happening behind the scenes anyway. It formalized it.
You don't think any of those change the game? Ok, I don't think we could discuss it any further thenI'm not sure how any of those change the game? Those are all things that could be worked out in negotiations with any player's union that exists. And I'm also pretty sure scholarships will be part of their compensation for playing. You can say "if you're getting paid you shouldn't get a scholarship" until you're blue in the face, but that won't probably be a realistic outcome. Kids are removed from teams, removed from scholarships, greyshirted as is. I'm sure schools would find loopholes just hte same to "fire" a kid but I doubt it would be viewed as being fired.
Most likely you'll see some sort of revenue share in the next couple of decades; combined with scholarships, housing, and food that they already get. Along with what's coming, the ability to make money on likeness. I'm not sure how title IX would come into play, but I'm not sure it would violate Title IX to say "Athletes get 25% equally split of revenue generated by their own sport, all athletes get 10% of the overall AD revenue". If your sport gets no revenue you don't get paid. Pretty simple actually.
Serious question, what do you think will change? If Denard is getting paid $50k a year to play at Michigan, what about the game we all love do you think differs?You don't think any of those change the game? Ok, I don't think we could discuss it any further then
Ok let's use your example:Serious question, what do you think will change? If Denard is getting paid $50k a year to play at Michigan, what about the game we all love do you think differs?
Again, no matter how the money breaks down how does that change the product you're watching on the field? If it's a shared resource, or distributed by importance of the player, how does your fan experience with the game change?Ok let's use your example:
Circa 2008
Denard Robinson v. Tate Forcier
Does Denard get $50k when Forcier is the starter? Do they get the same regardless?
Forcier imploded...what happens to his "stipend" of $50k?
Man, he was good! Too bad Texas didn't have the LHN back then. Maybe, they could have afforded out-bidding SMU for #19 or a faster defender than #17 who might be able to catch him.Long before 1999-2006...
Nobody was catching Dickerson..Man, he was good! Too bad Texas didn't have the LHN back then. Maybe, they could have afforded out-bidding SMU for #19 or a faster defender than #17 who might be able to catch him.
Dickerson was incredible. I never saw in person for SMU, but I saw him run for the Rams. Totally agree about where the kids go makes a difference. People love their schools!Nobody was catching Dickerson..
Now about the XFL and NFL getting the highly rated football players straight from highschool.. Do you know how much of a hit or miss that is? If you take the top 50 kids in the composite ranking, what is the hit rate that they will make it to the NFL on day one or two? Good luck with OL recruiting, it's the hardest position to project, LB is next.
CFB is the perfect minor league system, thinking the XFL could provide that is a joke. Schools bring out passion that an XFL team could never bring. Think Texans will be paying attention to the Detroit Dildo riders because one of the top players from Dallas signs there right after high school?? No, they pay attention for them to choose (most of the time) to a school in Texas.
It's a trojan horse to start a union. Fuck that noise