Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 96
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    It wonít be so major going forward if the same teams keep making the playoffs every year.
    I don't buy it. Look at the European leagues. La Liga has had 3 different teams win in the last 10 years. Bundesliga only 2 (1 in the last 8 years). Those are major sports.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  2. #42
    The only thing I can think of is somehow set up a system where annual scholarship limits are awarded on a spectrum with the worst teams getting the most and incrementally increase to the best team, who gets the fewest. Iím not sure what the actual numbers would be or if this is even possible, but it seems like a way to naturally curb talent being stockpiled at the top.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  3. #43
    Wouldn't increasing baseball scholarships disproportionately benefit the "blue blood" baseball players?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  4. #44
    Really Rich fishwater99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    80403
    Posts
    13,198
    Twitter
    @fishwater99
    I want to hear more about this booster system you speak of.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkDallas View Post
    I don't buy it. Look at the European leagues. La Liga has had 3 different teams win in the last 10 years. Bundesliga only 2 (1 in the last 8 years). Those are major sports.
    Correct but I think the Champions League drives the domestic leagues to form super teams.

    If Europe just had the EPL, I think there would be a push for more parity. However, due to the Champions League, for prestige and pride, every domestic league forms super teams.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  6. #46
    coachnorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Shmuley View Post
    Reduce schollies to 65. Emphasize developing what you sign. Give 15 more schollies to baseball and spread the remaining 5 to whatever.
    College baseball is totally irrelevant outside the Southeast. The year UCLA won it all, they would be lucky to get 300 at a game, so why is baseball even discussed? Even Major League Baseball is on the downside due to lack of interest by the youth of America.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by paindonthurt View Post
    I think creating some parity would help generate more money for the ncaa.

    Imagine having 2 or 3 big games a weekend.

    Even the non ďbigĒ games would be more competitive/exciting.
    No question. If they would increase parity, revenues would skyrocket.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunDawg View Post
    Then create a general scholarship fund for 15 scholarships a year called "HS football players that weren't good enough to play D1,D2,or JUCO Football Scholarship" and that fund has to go to kids from families that make under a certain amount of money.

    Problem solved. The reduction in scholarships would only effect the absolute worst potential college football players in the country due to a cascading effect of the worst D1 players going to D2 or JUCO, and so on and so on.

    Thus, if you don't end up with a college football scholarship, it's highly likely that you suck at football & need to get on with your life anyway, BUT, since we don't want to take away scholarships from HS school football players that need it, you just give them the scholarship I just created that will be paid for by Athletic Departments across the country.

    For a better on field product, it's worth it for everyone
    You expect all 130 big schools (or even any of them) to agree to that nonsense?

    If the scholarships are stripped from football and not given to another sport, schools are either not going to use them at all or they are simply going to add them to their academic scholarship allotment. The universities are going to do whatís best for them. The exact opposite of that would be paying the way of kids who are subpar academically, athletically, and (worst of all) financially to attend.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by PendingTransaction View Post
    Wouldn't increasing baseball scholarships disproportionately benefit the "blue blood" baseball players?
    Not if you don't allow them to split up the scholarships the same way they allow it now.

    Currently the 11.7 is turned into 15-20 partial scholarships with a 25% scholarship as the minimum offer.

    By increase baseball scholarships to 15-20, you can increase scholarship minimum to 75% & baseball programs would still be allowed to have the same amount of kids on scholarship but the kids on scholarship would have a much greater portion of their school paid for.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  10. #50
    Came here to write basically the exact same thing. First off, for all the what about Slay, Dak, etc comments... youíve got to be able to trust your coaches here. If they see talent, they need to sign it regardless of star ranking, and I have to think that Dan wouldíve signed the majority of those guys even if he had been strapped for scholarships. If not, itíd surely hurt to think about not having some of those guys, but again you have to ask yourself... do you want our program to hitch its wagon to diamonds in the rough or 4/5 star all Americans?

    Second, either way, itís not going to be the Slays and Mckinneys of the world losing out on scholarships. Theyíll just end up at USM or Memphis. They kids that wonít get scholarships are the ones WAY down the line that may not have even started for his HS team. It sucks, but if weíre worried about opportunities, just move the football ones to other sports. Baseball, cricket, water polo... whatever. At that point, adjust and adapt. Itís the way of the world


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  11. #51
    Do a recruiting draft like the NFL. In each round, Bama and Clemson pick LAST!


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  12. #52
    A European Super League is a matter of when, not if. But there's a lot of pushback from the smaller clubs and football associations in each country. It'll be a while. Expect some modifications to the Champions League in a few years to get more matchups between the real bluebloods as a next step though.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  13. #53
    It’s the only male sport in which we have a Chinaman’s chance to win a title.
    ďIím not going to take anything off the table at this point in time ... but I will tell you this,Ē Cohen began, ďthis person is going to have serious baseball experience as a head coach. This person is going to have made trips to Omaha, Nebraska. This person is going to have expertise in an area of the game and in all facets of the game. And this person is going to make our fan base very happy.Ē - Intense Bastard, April 5, 2018.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  14. #54
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by paindonthurt View Post
    If you moved the other scholarships to baseball, it would probably be better.

    Iíd imagine baseball players are a lot more likely to get and use a degree.
    With the way football players are currently whining about this/that, it's hard to feel sorry for them. Especially when there are baseball players paying their way through school.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Go Budaw View Post
    You expect all 130 big schools (or even any of them) to agree to that nonsense?

    If the scholarships are stripped from football and not given to another sport, schools are either not going to use them at all or they are simply going to add them to their academic scholarship allotment. The universities are going to do whatís best for them. The exact opposite of that would be paying the way of kids who are subpar academically, athletically, and (worst of all) financially to attend.
    Believe that was just a potential solution offered to appease those griping about taking away scholarship opportunities from mostly minority, financially needy families where a lot of football recruits come from. I would personally prefer those scholarships be taken from fat football programs and moved over to scholarship starved sports like baseball. Personally I think that would improve the quality of both college football and college baseball immediately. But I would be fine with letting each school decide. Main thing is I just can't accept the argument that college football has to remain a totally non-competitive sport where elite programs can just sign all the elite prospects and then process out what they don't want to keep just so we can provide a bunch of unneeded scholarships in the sport in the name of opportunity.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  16. #56
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    Again, so what? Is this a welfare program or a major sport? It won’t be so major going forward if the same teams keep making the playoffs every year.
    Some of both, if we're honest. The mission really isn't to print money for the institution to bank. The idea is to promote education and bolster the economies of the state/region where the institution resides.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by maroonmania View Post
    That is sort of a humorous statement given those on the 'outside looking in' is about 90% or more of all schools that play Division 1 football.
    It's more than 90%. THe problem is you need the non-bluebloods from the P5 conferences to work against their conferences to get the changes made. Right now, I would expect LSU, Bama, Auburn, UGA, UF, and A&M to believe that the current system benefits them. UT might be delusional enough to think they belong in that group. So you have almost half the SEC that isn't going to want to change.

    In the Big10, you're basically looking at OSU, Michigan, PSU, and maybe Wisconsin thinking the current system benefits them.

    In the ACC you're looking at Clemson, Notre Dame, and FSU thinking the current system benefits them?

    Big 12 you're going to have Texas and Oklahoma.

    Pac12 I'm not sure who you will have that thinks the current system is better.

    But at the very least, you'll have 14 schools that think the current system benefits them. If you could successfully get the other schools to work against the wishes of their conference, you might cause the formation of a 16 team super conference. I think that would be shortsighted of those schools, because I think they need the eyeballs from the fans of other schools and they won't follow what is essentially a 16 team minor league, but regardless, I'd be fine with it.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  18. #58
    Likes Custom Titles CochiseCowbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,000
    Quote Originally Posted by coachnorm View Post
    College baseball is totally irrelevant outside the Southeast. The year UCLA won it all, they would be lucky to get 300 at a game, so why is baseball even discussed? Even Major League Baseball is on the downside due to lack of interest by the youth of America.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by operch View Post
    I would bet 95%
    it's 125/130


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by 22yardpunt View Post
    Well Pirate, what might you suggest as an option as to level the playing field?
    I have an idea. And it would work too. No reduction of scholarships or any of that. All that has to be done is for the NCAA to enforce the rules they have, and enforce them fairly and evenly across the board. No paying any player outside of what they would legally get by the current NCAA rules.

    Nobody is going to Alabama to ride the bench for free or because Nick Saban's glowing personality or to get "The very best coaching" - whatever that means. Players will go somewhere that they can get early playing time and the talent will naturally disperse. Problem solved.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  21. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    It'll create less opportunity for football players in a minor way, perhaps.
    And it'll improve the opportunity for others in different sports since the scholarships would go elsewhere. So it can be seen as benefitting student athletes in other sports.
    All just a matter of perspective.
    650-700 kids per year isnít ďminorĒ. Also, thereís no evidence to support the idea that those scholarships would go to other sports. Almost invariably, the trend for scholarships goes down across the board, especially for non-revenue sports. If baseball was a money maker at more schools, it would be more fully funded at the scholarship level. Schools arenít going to vote to take money away from their main money generator to fund sports that are financial drains.

    It'll trickle down and affect players for sure- some guys won't be able to live their dream of playing college football at the NAIA level.
    I think itís more about living their dream of not leaving college tens of thousands of dollars in debt.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  22. #62

    Yes, wonder what their secret is!

    Quote Originally Posted by Coast_Dawg View Post
    Obviously recruiting is a process and I have never seen anyone that excels at it as consistently as Saban. Kirby obviously learned something from him on that.
    I had a professor at a division II school tell our class how much it cost for a blue chip basketball player ($20,000 back in 1990). He asked us how much did we think division I players got paid. If anyone on here thinks Saban is recruiting all these players because he is a good coach and other teams are offering them money I've got some ocean front property in Canton I'll sell you cheap!


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  23. #63
    There still have to be losers!

    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    A European Super League is a matter of when, not if. But there's a lot of pushback from the smaller clubs and football associations in each country. It'll be a while. Expect some modifications to the Champions League in a few years to get more matchups between the real bluebloods as a next step though.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  24. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgg View Post
    650-700 kids per year isnít ďminorĒ. Also, thereís no evidence to support the idea that those scholarships would go to other sports. Almost invariably, the trend for scholarships goes down across the board, especially for non-revenue sports. If baseball was a money maker at more schools, it would be more fully funded at the scholarship level. Schools arenít going to vote to take money away from their main money generator to fund sports that are financial drains.



    I think itís more about living their dream of not leaving college tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
    Mostly correct. Unfortunately, reforms that would be extremely beneficial for MSU would not be beneficial for 99% of the other schools in the country. Even schools like LSU who are baseball superpowers would never want to rob schollies from football to give to baseball. College baseball is completely irrelevant outside the southeast, and even within the southeast it ranges as a distant 3rd or sometimes 4th in terms of popularity compared to other on campus sports.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  25. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgg View Post
    650-700 kids per year isn’t “minor”. Also, there’s no evidence to support the idea that those scholarships would go to other sports. Almost invariably, the trend for scholarships goes down across the board, especially for non-revenue sports. If baseball was a money maker at more schools, it would be more fully funded at the scholarship level. Schools aren’t going to vote to take money away from their main money generator to fund sports that are financial drains.



    I think it’s more about living their dream of not leaving college tens of thousands of dollars in debt.


    You are correct that there is no evidence the scholarships will go to other sports. Its tough to have evidence for something that doesnt exist since this is a hypothetical. In this hypothetical many are saying that they support reducing football scholarships and transferring those scholarships to other sports. That is the premise of the hypothetical, so there neednt be historical evidence of such a thing happening to make the hypothetical a good idea.
    Hopefully you now understand what is happening here.
    And I get that historical evidence has been used to support the idea of this hypothetical. An example is that scholarships were reduced 25ish years ago to their current level and that shows it has been done, so it can be done now too. But again, the argument is that scholarships would then be transferred to other sports and THAT is what many support.


    650-700 kids is minor, yes. Its minor because assuming the scholarship are moved to other sports, the net loss of student athletes having college paid for is 0.


    I am very aware of scholarships no longer existing as the University of Iowa eliminated men's gymnastics and I know a kid on the team. Iowa eliminated mens gymnastics, mens tennis, and both men and womens swimming and diving. This was announced as all due to covid.
    Uconn cancelled 4 sports, William & Mary cancelled 7, LaSalle cancelled 7, East Carolina cancelled 4, and I think Stanford cancelled 11 sports.
    All these were covid driven per the universities, but the result is the same- fewer student athletes not leaving college tens of thousands of dollars in debt.


    It is absurd to think that anything in college athletics is static. Its naive as 17. A scholarship isnt inherently more valuable just because its allocated to football instead of men's track since either way it will do the job you mention- allow a student athlete to leave college without being tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

    And to be clear, I have no doubt college revenues will continue to be the on the same trajectory even in scholarships are reduced to 65. That will not affect football revenue at all. And there is historical evidence to support this since revenues have exponentially increased in the time since scholarships dropped down to 85. Talk about associating something that is unrealated, but its evidence!


    0 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  26. #66
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    You are correct that there is no evidence the scholarships will go to other sports. Its tough to have evidence for something that doesnt exist since this is a hypothetical. In this hypothetical many are saying that they support reducing football scholarships and transferring those scholarships to other sports. That is the premise of the hypothetical, so there neednt be historical evidence of such a thing happening to make the hypothetical a good idea.
    Hopefully you now understand what is happening here.
    And I get that historical evidence has been used to support the idea of this hypothetical. An example is that scholarships were reduced 25ish years ago to their current level and that shows it has been done, so it can be done now too. But again, the argument is that scholarships would then be transferred to other sports and THAT is what many support.


    650-700 kids is minor, yes. Its minor because assuming the scholarship are moved to other sports, the net loss of student athletes having college paid for is 0.


    I am very aware of scholarships no longer existing as the University of Iowa eliminated men's gymnastics and I know a kid on the team. Iowa eliminated mens gymnastics, mens tennis, and both men and womens swimming and diving. This was announced as all due to covid.
    Uconn cancelled 4 sports, William & Mary cancelled 7, LaSalle cancelled 7, East Carolina cancelled 4, and I think Stanford cancelled 11 sports.
    All these were covid driven per the universities, but the result is the same- fewer student athletes not leaving college tens of thousands of dollars in debt.


    It is absurd to think that anything in college athletics is static. Its naive as 17. A scholarship isnt inherently more valuable just because its allocated to football instead of men's track since either way it will do the job you mention- allow a student athlete to leave college without being tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

    And to be clear, I have no doubt college revenues will continue to be the on the same trajectory even in scholarships are reduced to 65. That will not affect football revenue at all. And there is historical evidence to support this since revenues have exponentially increased in the time since scholarships dropped down to 85. Talk about associating something that is unrealated, but its evidence!
    Talk about a bad argument. Who cares if revenues are going up for the school? If that doesn't translate to more scholarships (which it won't), it'll just mean more gold plating of facilities and more jobs at the school. Whatever, I don't really care for or against that, but the students will continue to get screwed.

    I'm still wondering why a smarmy little worm like yourself is arguing on behalf of a school and not the students?


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  27. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    You all do recognize that this will create less opportunities for football players around the country, right?

    It's fine, and it'll help parity, but just remember that it will also affect real people.
    Why are football players getting scholarship opportunities more important than any other student athlete that you would give those scholarships to? No one needs 85 players on a roster. We were just competitive with 43 scholarship players against Georgia. Itís insane that we just let teams stockpile recruits. Itís not good for anyone, including the ones who think they are good enough to play at Georgia, Alabama, LSU, etc and end up having to leave after sitting on the bench for 3 years.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  28. #68
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by campshelbydog842003 View Post
    Why are football players getting scholarship opportunities more important than any other student athlete that you would give those scholarships to? No one needs 85 players on a roster. We were just competitive with 43 scholarship players against Georgia. Itís insane that we just let teams stockpile recruits. Itís not good for anyone, including the ones who think they are good enough to play at Georgia, Alabama, LSU, etc and end up having to leave after sitting on the bench for 3 years.
    I never said it was. Read all the posts in the thread.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  29. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    You are correct that there is no evidence the scholarships will go to other sports. Its tough to have evidence for something that doesnt exist since this is a hypothetical. In this hypothetical many are saying that they support reducing football scholarships and transferring those scholarships to other sports. That is the premise of the hypothetical, so there neednt be historical evidence of such a thing happening to make the hypothetical a good idea.
    Hopefully you now understand what is happening here.
    And I get that historical evidence has been used to support the idea of this hypothetical. An example is that scholarships were reduced 25ish years ago to their current level and that shows it has been done, so it can be done now too. But again, the argument is that scholarships would then be transferred to other sports and THAT is what many support.
    I intend this refute as more of a question than to declare you're wrong, ftr...

    There is no minimum total athletic scholarships requirement. The only requirement is that for every men's scholarship, you must have a women's scholarship.

    So if you force schools to remove football scholarships, that gives them two options. They can add more men's scholarships to other sports, or they can eliminate women's scholarships. I understand that most here support the former as a hypothetical, but as far as I know, there's no possible way to force schools to make choose the first option. Therefore, many would choose the latter.

    So it seems to me the hypothetical that people are supporting is utopian and illogical.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  30. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    Talk about a bad argument. Who cares if revenues are going up for the school? If that doesn't translate to more scholarships (which it won't), it'll just mean more gold plating of facilities and more jobs at the school. Whatever, I don't really care for or against that, but the students will continue to get screwed.

    I'm still wondering why a smarmy little worm like yourself is arguing on behalf of a school and not the students?
    The reason I mentioned revenues going up is because a common concern i have read when scholarship reductions are discussed, is that people are worried fewer players on scholarship will reduce quality on the field which will reduce interest which will reduce revenues. And since those revenues are used for ALL sports, then the concern is that all programs will suffer due to lower revenues.
    Its a dumb argument, but this forum is full of dumb arguments so I figured I would address the dumb argument.


    Am I arguing on behalf of the school and not the students? I dont think I am arguing for or against either, really. I think there should be less scholarships for football because that will lead to better product(more competitive) on the field. That isnt arguing for the school or for the students. Its arguing on behalf of me, a consumer.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  31. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by VegasDawg13 View Post
    I intend this refute as more of a question than to declare you're wrong, ftr...

    There is no minimum total athletic scholarships requirement. The only requirement is that for every men's scholarship, you must have a women's scholarship.

    So if you force schools to remove football scholarships, that gives them two options. They can add more men's scholarships to other sports, or they can eliminate women's scholarships. I understand that most here support the former as a hypothetical, but as far as I know, there's no possible way to force schools to make choose the first option. Therefore, many would choose the latter.

    So it seems to me the hypothetical that people are supporting is utopian and illogical.
    Yes you are correct- it could allow a school to remove 20 or whatever scholarships for women's sports.
    If a school does that, then they are either over-extended as it is(which is a real issue for many athletic departments) and the adjustment will help the department manage their revenues better, or they were looking to reduce sports for another reason.
    Schools can do this right now though, to be clear. They can eliminate men's and women's programs for any number of reasons- I listed multiple schools that have done this very thing and cited covid revenue drop as reason for dropping programs.
    If a school wants to eliminate programs, it will. If a school wants to maintain programs and has the money to, it will.
    I dont think a 20 scholarship reduction in football would motivate all schools to then just eliminate 20 scholarships in women's sports.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  32. #72

    Communist, not socialist thanks golfer and pat

    100% sharing of revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    Technically true. The SEC isn't a socialist conference. It's a communist conference.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  33. #73
    Years ago an ESPN talking head on one of the radio shows said that we really didn't want to see our teams in the NC game. He went on to say we wanted to see the highly talented teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame and USC in those games. I was yelling at the radio telling him what I thought of him. I've grown tired of seeing the same teams competing in the NC games. I don't even watch them any more and consider them irrelevant at this point. If it continues this way let's just move the teams that are regularly there and let them play each other during the season and declare the winner NC and the rest of us can play for an NC for the restofus.

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunDawg View Post
    This is a huge part of the reason it needs to change.

    With growing TV options and sports, college football has to evolve for the next generation. The NFL, MLB, and NBA have all created more and more rules to encourage parity. It's simply a better product.

    If college football doesn't evolve in a way that allows more parity, better games, and thus more quality inventory, it'll simply begin to die.

    The entire country can't be Bama, Ohio State, and Clemson fans because not everyone can go to 3 schools. You need more parity to maximize profits and sustainability in the future.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  34. #74
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    Its arguing on behalf of me, a consumer.
    The dumbest argument of all. It's about the students, opportunities, innovation, economic promise. Not the fans. Fans need to get on board and support the university thus the students.

    If you think this is 100% about your entertainment, go watch the NFL and leave college behind. Entertainment is part of it, but it pales in comparison to the real mission of college athletics.


    1 out of 5 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  35. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    The dumbest argument of all. It's about the students, opportunities, innovation, economic promise. Not the fans. Fans need to get on board and support the university thus the students.

    If you think this is 100% about your entertainment, go watch the NFL and leave college behind. Entertainment is part of it, but it pales in comparison to the real mission of college athletics.
    Oh sweetie, the reason why college football makes money is because its entertaining to fans, who are consumers. Take away that and all this isnt discussed.

    I personally am fully on board with reducing the importance of athletics at the collegiate level. Revenue generating sports have become further corporatized and even closer to pro than ever before. Student athletes who turn pro and start off in minor leagues are typically in situations with worse facilities and travel than they had in college. I wont think twice if revenue generating sports across the board are less emphasized and invested in.
    ...but that wont happen soon since fans continue to throw money at college football and basketball because they are consumers and are entertained.



    You mistakenly thought I was arguing in favor of colleges(im not sure what you thought I was arguing for on their behalf). Now you mistakenly think fans spending money on football isnt for their benefit, but the benefit of student athletes and 'economic promise'(whatever the 17 that means in this context).


    Come up with some good thoughts and we can actually keep discussing this. But as it stands, your comments and views are both simplistic and inaccurate. At the D1 level and specifically the P5 level(which is what this thread topic is really about- competitiveness in P5 football), the mission of college athletics is not at all singular. It is about entertaining fans, it is about generating revenue, it is about giving academic opportunity to student athletes, it is about being an economic engine for towns, it is about developing student athletes for professional employment, and more.
    All that happens by entertaining fans and generating revenue.


    1 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  36. #76
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    Oh sweetie, the reason why college football makes money is because its entertaining to fans, who are consumers. Take away that and all this isnt discussed.

    I personally am fully on board with reducing the importance of athletics at the collegiate level. Revenue generating sports have become further corporatized and even closer to pro than ever before. Student athletes who turn pro and start off in minor leagues are typically in situations with worse facilities and travel than they had in college. I wont think twice if revenue generating sports across the board are less emphasized and invested in.
    ...but that wont happen soon since fans continue to throw money at college football and basketball because they are consumers and are entertained.



    You mistakenly thought I was arguing in favor of colleges(im not sure what you thought I was arguing for on their behalf). Now you mistakenly think fans spending money on football isnt for their benefit, but the benefit of student athletes and 'economic promise'(whatever the 17 that means in this context).


    Come up with some good thoughts and we can actually keep discussing this. But as it stands, your comments and views are both simplistic and inaccurate. At the D1 level and specifically the P5 level(which is what this thread topic is really about- competitiveness in P5 football), the mission of college athletics is not at all singular. It is about entertaining fans, it is about generating revenue, it is about giving academic opportunity to student athletes, it is about being an economic engine for towns, it is about developing student athletes for professional employment, and more.
    All that happens by entertaining fans and generating revenue.
    You're not very good at the patronizing thing.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  37. #77
    Is this a misprint? Staff and players totaling 170? If so, Iíd say regulations are in need.

    ďSo far, so good, this week for Ohio State, which voluntarily canceled its game at Illinois last week because of a spike in positive tests among its 170 players and staff in Columbus.Ē


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  38. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by PirateDawg View Post
    Years ago an ESPN talking head on one of the radio shows said that we really didn't want to see our teams in the NC game. He went on to say we wanted to see the highly talented teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame and USC in those games. I was yelling at the radio telling him what I thought of him. I've grown tired of seeing the same teams competing in the NC games. I don't even watch them any more and consider them irrelevant at this point. If it continues this way let's just move the teams that are regularly there and let them play each other during the season and declare the winner NC and the rest of us can play for an NC for the restofus.
    for me, itís less about whoís in the NC game more about the top teams being in good games most week. Bama games are simply unwatchable and thatís terrible for the sport.

    The best teams need to be in good games for the sport to thrive and currently thatís really rare due to the recruiting monopolies that have been created.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  39. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgg View Post
    650-700 kids per year isnít ďminorĒ. Also, thereís no evidence to support the idea that those scholarships would go to other sports. Almost invariably, the trend for scholarships goes down across the board, especially for non-revenue sports. If baseball was a money maker at more schools, it would be more fully funded at the scholarship level. Schools arenít going to vote to take money away from their main money generator to fund sports that are financial drains.



    I think itís more about living their dream of not leaving college tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
    taking away scholarships would make more money for football, not lose money.

    adding scholarships to football makes it worse, not better.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  40. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Go Budaw View Post
    Mostly correct. Unfortunately, reforms that would be extremely beneficial for MSU would not be beneficial for 99% of the other schools in the country. Even schools like LSU who are baseball superpowers would never want to rob schollies from football to give to baseball. College baseball is completely irrelevant outside the southeast, and even within the southeast it ranges as a distant 3rd or sometimes 4th in terms of popularity compared to other on campus sports.
    I think most schools outside of about 7 blue bloods would be in favor of lowering scholarships


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SixPack Sponsors






Disclaimer: Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Mississippi State University or any other Mississippi State sports website. Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Scottish & Newcastle PLC d/b/a Bulldog Strong Ale. The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SixPackSpeak.com. The interactive nature of the SixPackSpeak.com Discussion Forums makes it impossible for SixPackSpeak.com to assume responsibility for any of the content, including photographs and/or images, posted by participants. The ideas, suggestions, thoughts, recommendations, opinions, comments, advice, and observations made by participants of the interactive Discussion Forums are not endorsed by SixPackSpeak.com.