I don't believe the NCAA is capable of fixing itself so it needs to be dissolved and replaced by something else.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Do you still enjoy college football/sports?
- Thread starter DBT
- Start date
I don't believe the NCAA is capable of fixing itself so it needs to be dissolved and replaced by something else.
NCAA needs anti trust exemption. It needs the ability to collectively bargain and to negotiate TV rights for everyone (fat chance). The SEC and B1G wont abide by that. In the end I think there will be a pro league (SEC and B1G) and the rest of the schools will be unpaid amateurs or will have dropped sports.
We have both posted it before. The level of play at the FCS and D2 level is much better than a lot of people think. A lot of the players are a little too small or a step slow for P4 or the pros but the games are very competitive and the level of play is high.
Now you can stream most of those games and the teams do have much more roster stability and many more of the players are connected to the state. If you want to watch live tickets to go to a Mines game or a game at Pueblo are a bargain compared to most other entertainment options and a lot of fun.
I will still be a CU fan first until they manage to ruin it entirely but I can see my general interest shifting.
NCAA needs the anti-trust exemption but at the same time it needs a level of oversight added as well. If they are going to call it college football and college sports the athletes should stand a pretty good chance of finishing their time in it with a college education and a college experience.
Yes some of the players will get (and deserve to get) paid for the interest they generate but very few are going to ever make a paycheck as a pro.
Congress has been sitting on their asses on this very thing for too long...what faith should we have in Congress to solve this very problem?
Most of the country doesn't care about high level college sports so there is no benefit to their congressional representatives in either house to get involved. The states where there is a passion for college sports there are enough of the schools that are at or want to be at the top level that anything that would level the playing field would be seen as counter and hurt them politically. Between the B1G and the SEC you have enough Senators and Representatives to kill anything substantial.
Nothing happens until the whole thing collapses on itself.
I will say this - I’ve really enjoyed DU hockey the last three years. College hockey still has an innocence and purity to it that is very nice. Obviously I lucked in to being a fan of one of the all time great D-1 College hockey programs due to a child going there. Point being, I believe there is still a lot of enjoyment and passion in college sports outside of football.
GRM
I'm a ****ty troll
This is a good topic. I still love College Football. I'll keep following the Buffs whenever and where-ever. For me, it is great to be relevant again. I do my football on Saturdays, so not much will change here.
My biggest complaint with CFB is the loss of competitive balance over the past 10-15 years. Now there are very few Have's and more disparity with the growing number of Have-Nots. The pool of top notch teams has really shrunk--I think it used to be about 25 with legitimate championship shots, now it is more like 10. IMO, the top 6 SEC teams plus Clemson, Ohio State and Michigan are truly a huge step above. These schools are prohibitive favorites, and outside of Cam Newton/Jamies Winston escapades they are winning the Championships. The playoff outcomes and specifically watching the Conference Championship games side-by-side bears this out. Watching the SEC title game against the others, it is really not all that close in the 11 on 11 player match-ups/team depth areas. The SEC is just bigger, stronger, faster, and deeper--TV bears it out. A few other traditionally great teams periodically join in the post-season for a year (they have a break-out star), here or there--I'm talking UW, Ore, USC, Notre Dame, Auburn, Miami and even Fla State; but those are looking more rare these days. I would normally consider Texas and OU Haves (they have the $$$, tradition, results, and have been in the playoffs), however now that may be questionable, as they may be swallowed up by the overall SEC. If they are good they ascend into the SEC 6. All of those teams and plus others that were "Haves" a decade ago (i.e. legitimate shot at championship) most are now relegated to underdog/dark-horses to after thoughts. Brian Kelly leaving Notre Dame for LSU for the sole reason of winning a title was a big tell. He felt he could get ND regularly into the playoff, but did not think he could obtain all the horses/depth to really win it all. In today's college football several strong traditional programs with some success are really in the dumps or heading that way: Stanford, UCLA, Florida, ASU, USC, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska are all sort of afterthoughts at this juncture. Also, that applies to good programs--Okie State, KSU, Utah, Louisville that all have put together mostly good/great seasons, but just never acquire enough horses to join the Haves.
Certainly, college football is a mess and in a huge period of transition. The $$$ disparity concerns me a great deal. I do think there are some positives:
1. Going to the 12 team (or 14 team) playoff may open the field somewhat. I think it is doubtful that much will change in the 1st 5 years, however we could start to see a little more parity emerge. IMO, Ole-Miss or even Penn State (neither team I really root for) breaking through winning playoff games, reaching a final or winning it all would be a good early development. Down the line, we might see some teams that make the playoffs as a younger team or with returning talent, then become prime transfer destinations possessing a legitimate championship shot. Perhaps, ascending teams could join the Haves and maybe stay there for a while. Utah's performance is intriguing. If it were a 12 team playoff, I think they were projected to get in 4-5 times--I doubt they would have lost every game. Say they had a younger or deep team coming off a playoff win with with players returning, Whittingham could fill that 2-deep potenitally obtaining the playmakers or top notch QB they lack. This is where you could see a "Cinderella" emerge and become part of a larger "Haves."
2. I am adjusting to the transfer portal and multiple transfers, as free agency has arrived. I have just re-focused HS v. TP recruiting. It is more maddening, but more exciting too, as we see the roster evolve. Now Prime is an extreme, but teams can really address some of their deficiencies now. Given the sheer # of 4* HS blue chips that really wash-out (i.e. quit playing, or now at non P-4 schools, injury issues), I now see the folly of hyping high school recruiting. Making 17-19yo kids, as the savior/bedrock is nice in rooting for a player 3-4 years, however IMO those bets are long-shots (Jason Harris is on his 3rd team, looking down a division, not even sure where Assad Clayton is these days), and the TP has overshadowed HS recruiting for some good reasons--Div II/non-P65 guys jumping divisions, seasoned grad transfers who want that extra year, and great players stuck in a glut depth chart. Certainly, Prime does things to the extreme, and a few coaches like Dabo do it differently. I have concluded, that HS recruiting while still important is a crap-shoot (17-18 yo's are too unpredictable) and those recruiting races rely too much on the 247, Rivals, ESPN (the "Insiders") etc... as the Hype Machine. I'm not sure that was good for the game or the Frosh players. Again, many wash out and some are not prepared to college life + football. Perhaps in later years, some players might consider being willing to sit a year or two in growing, maturing, and adjusting without the huge spotlight/pressure and lessen quick transfers. One place where HS recruiting/visits etc... will remain important is coaches and players getting to know one another. If you know a coach or AC, and desire to transfer you may be going to somewhat of a known.
3. I think the TP will even out somewhat. Each program has the memo that they need to get better in scouting, evaluating, and recruiting more out of the TP. They are putting more resources into the TP process. The faster and more proactive a team is, probably the better. 247, Rivals, Espn sometimes continue to be a hype machine, however they now have to compete with PFF's grades, experienced players, stats, all-conference accolades to off-set that. IMO, this is the year where the TP talent market really upgraded featuring P64 projected starters, experienced P-4 players, some 5*'s, and promising underclassman taking the plunge (i.e. Quincy Wiggens). Most were seeking an expanded role, however, I think some are really on 2nd chances and may either work or wash out, as attrition has always occurred in CFB.
4. NIL is a concern, as presumably whoever pays the most, should win the most. Certainly, this did not happen for Jimbo and Texas A&M. I think it is proven that one player or even a few players alone does not make a team into a championship contender. For HS recruits, I see a hot market for the top-50, but as guys wash-out or transfer, donor NIL opportunities may dry up some for the top-250. You may see more NIL bets on Upper-Classman TP's, however if injuries, performance and the $$, does not really equate to wins that could tighten. Also, certain guys that are "playing for the bag," will either put up or be shut-out.
5. Many hate the recruiting calendar and things were very hectic in December and April, however I see a method to the madness. This crush calendar overwhelms "Insiders." There is so much going on with players, coaches, roster movement in flux; I believe a well run football program and staff may have a better chance to get the upper-hand. Wasn't one of our starting safeties last year from Utah Tech, Utah Valley State?? The Insider Hype Machine either has to really expand, or their role will drop. Given these services are mainly subscription based and this is the media industry, I doubt a huge revenue influx will occur permitting expansion.
6. I think moving away from the Insiders/Hype Machine could be good for CFB as a whole. If you go back, the Haves (Top-7 Haves) really dominated the HS market for the last decade. Really, the top-15 took most of the Blue-Chip crop. The TP v. HS recruit conversations/positions will continue; however I think this might bring a better competitive balance within the P-64.
7. The Courts are prioritizing the college athletes over School/Conference Power, and I believe Congress is with them, so doubtful that will change. Good for the athlete. Maybe this opens the door to more parity and competition.
8. The new developments are a bummer for the bowls and I believe there will be contraction. IMO, there is no reason that 80 teams play in bowl games, except that ESPN basically holds the monopoly on most games and I guess they get sponsors, no matter how bad the match-up is. In time, I would like to see this backed down to about 60 with the smaller conferences still having tie-ins. End ESPN's drip, drip, drip of bowl games. Also, given that CFB is year-around and really an NFL feeder system, they need to do two things: (1) permit all the CFP teams not in bowls to have an extra # of practices--this might help with parity and coaching changes; and (2) the NFL should question the Bowl opt-outs. With only 5 rounds of the draft maybe some opt-outs may learn a lesson by their stock dropping or maybe not getting drafted.
9. An interesting realm has to do with coaching. Although, I consider DeBoar, Dillingham, Fisch and Prime to all be unknowns in the overall P-64 realm, it is because they lack a proven track record of P-4 success. I still think this has huge pull. Guys like Sark and Kiffin have grown wiser and ascended. These college coaches are working harder now than they ever have, and some are burning out. On both the HC and AC coach level, it looks to be going younger and charisma is a charm. Personally, I think Lincoln Riley is one step into the NFL. If there is more parity via more teams having a legitimate shot at a championship or long playoff run, perhaps coaches may not jump around with so much frequency. Both schools and coaches may have more patience.
10. College football is big business and always an "arms race." However, with NIL, the TP and still required facilities upgrades the $$$ might become saturated. With the House Settlement cut, once finalized the more you make, it could be the more you have to contribute. I think some schools may contract football or go Div II, however I think most will remain. The question will be Title IX and contraction of other sports. CFB is most schools #1 exposure and a local economic boon.
My biggest complaint with CFB is the loss of competitive balance over the past 10-15 years. Now there are very few Have's and more disparity with the growing number of Have-Nots. The pool of top notch teams has really shrunk--I think it used to be about 25 with legitimate championship shots, now it is more like 10. IMO, the top 6 SEC teams plus Clemson, Ohio State and Michigan are truly a huge step above. These schools are prohibitive favorites, and outside of Cam Newton/Jamies Winston escapades they are winning the Championships. The playoff outcomes and specifically watching the Conference Championship games side-by-side bears this out. Watching the SEC title game against the others, it is really not all that close in the 11 on 11 player match-ups/team depth areas. The SEC is just bigger, stronger, faster, and deeper--TV bears it out. A few other traditionally great teams periodically join in the post-season for a year (they have a break-out star), here or there--I'm talking UW, Ore, USC, Notre Dame, Auburn, Miami and even Fla State; but those are looking more rare these days. I would normally consider Texas and OU Haves (they have the $$$, tradition, results, and have been in the playoffs), however now that may be questionable, as they may be swallowed up by the overall SEC. If they are good they ascend into the SEC 6. All of those teams and plus others that were "Haves" a decade ago (i.e. legitimate shot at championship) most are now relegated to underdog/dark-horses to after thoughts. Brian Kelly leaving Notre Dame for LSU for the sole reason of winning a title was a big tell. He felt he could get ND regularly into the playoff, but did not think he could obtain all the horses/depth to really win it all. In today's college football several strong traditional programs with some success are really in the dumps or heading that way: Stanford, UCLA, Florida, ASU, USC, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska are all sort of afterthoughts at this juncture. Also, that applies to good programs--Okie State, KSU, Utah, Louisville that all have put together mostly good/great seasons, but just never acquire enough horses to join the Haves.
Certainly, college football is a mess and in a huge period of transition. The $$$ disparity concerns me a great deal. I do think there are some positives:
1. Going to the 12 team (or 14 team) playoff may open the field somewhat. I think it is doubtful that much will change in the 1st 5 years, however we could start to see a little more parity emerge. IMO, Ole-Miss or even Penn State (neither team I really root for) breaking through winning playoff games, reaching a final or winning it all would be a good early development. Down the line, we might see some teams that make the playoffs as a younger team or with returning talent, then become prime transfer destinations possessing a legitimate championship shot. Perhaps, ascending teams could join the Haves and maybe stay there for a while. Utah's performance is intriguing. If it were a 12 team playoff, I think they were projected to get in 4-5 times--I doubt they would have lost every game. Say they had a younger or deep team coming off a playoff win with with players returning, Whittingham could fill that 2-deep potenitally obtaining the playmakers or top notch QB they lack. This is where you could see a "Cinderella" emerge and become part of a larger "Haves."
2. I am adjusting to the transfer portal and multiple transfers, as free agency has arrived. I have just re-focused HS v. TP recruiting. It is more maddening, but more exciting too, as we see the roster evolve. Now Prime is an extreme, but teams can really address some of their deficiencies now. Given the sheer # of 4* HS blue chips that really wash-out (i.e. quit playing, or now at non P-4 schools, injury issues), I now see the folly of hyping high school recruiting. Making 17-19yo kids, as the savior/bedrock is nice in rooting for a player 3-4 years, however IMO those bets are long-shots (Jason Harris is on his 3rd team, looking down a division, not even sure where Assad Clayton is these days), and the TP has overshadowed HS recruiting for some good reasons--Div II/non-P65 guys jumping divisions, seasoned grad transfers who want that extra year, and great players stuck in a glut depth chart. Certainly, Prime does things to the extreme, and a few coaches like Dabo do it differently. I have concluded, that HS recruiting while still important is a crap-shoot (17-18 yo's are too unpredictable) and those recruiting races rely too much on the 247, Rivals, ESPN (the "Insiders") etc... as the Hype Machine. I'm not sure that was good for the game or the Frosh players. Again, many wash out and some are not prepared to college life + football. Perhaps in later years, some players might consider being willing to sit a year or two in growing, maturing, and adjusting without the huge spotlight/pressure and lessen quick transfers. One place where HS recruiting/visits etc... will remain important is coaches and players getting to know one another. If you know a coach or AC, and desire to transfer you may be going to somewhat of a known.
3. I think the TP will even out somewhat. Each program has the memo that they need to get better in scouting, evaluating, and recruiting more out of the TP. They are putting more resources into the TP process. The faster and more proactive a team is, probably the better. 247, Rivals, Espn sometimes continue to be a hype machine, however they now have to compete with PFF's grades, experienced players, stats, all-conference accolades to off-set that. IMO, this is the year where the TP talent market really upgraded featuring P64 projected starters, experienced P-4 players, some 5*'s, and promising underclassman taking the plunge (i.e. Quincy Wiggens). Most were seeking an expanded role, however, I think some are really on 2nd chances and may either work or wash out, as attrition has always occurred in CFB.
4. NIL is a concern, as presumably whoever pays the most, should win the most. Certainly, this did not happen for Jimbo and Texas A&M. I think it is proven that one player or even a few players alone does not make a team into a championship contender. For HS recruits, I see a hot market for the top-50, but as guys wash-out or transfer, donor NIL opportunities may dry up some for the top-250. You may see more NIL bets on Upper-Classman TP's, however if injuries, performance and the $$, does not really equate to wins that could tighten. Also, certain guys that are "playing for the bag," will either put up or be shut-out.
5. Many hate the recruiting calendar and things were very hectic in December and April, however I see a method to the madness. This crush calendar overwhelms "Insiders." There is so much going on with players, coaches, roster movement in flux; I believe a well run football program and staff may have a better chance to get the upper-hand. Wasn't one of our starting safeties last year from Utah Tech, Utah Valley State?? The Insider Hype Machine either has to really expand, or their role will drop. Given these services are mainly subscription based and this is the media industry, I doubt a huge revenue influx will occur permitting expansion.
6. I think moving away from the Insiders/Hype Machine could be good for CFB as a whole. If you go back, the Haves (Top-7 Haves) really dominated the HS market for the last decade. Really, the top-15 took most of the Blue-Chip crop. The TP v. HS recruit conversations/positions will continue; however I think this might bring a better competitive balance within the P-64.
7. The Courts are prioritizing the college athletes over School/Conference Power, and I believe Congress is with them, so doubtful that will change. Good for the athlete. Maybe this opens the door to more parity and competition.
8. The new developments are a bummer for the bowls and I believe there will be contraction. IMO, there is no reason that 80 teams play in bowl games, except that ESPN basically holds the monopoly on most games and I guess they get sponsors, no matter how bad the match-up is. In time, I would like to see this backed down to about 60 with the smaller conferences still having tie-ins. End ESPN's drip, drip, drip of bowl games. Also, given that CFB is year-around and really an NFL feeder system, they need to do two things: (1) permit all the CFP teams not in bowls to have an extra # of practices--this might help with parity and coaching changes; and (2) the NFL should question the Bowl opt-outs. With only 5 rounds of the draft maybe some opt-outs may learn a lesson by their stock dropping or maybe not getting drafted.
9. An interesting realm has to do with coaching. Although, I consider DeBoar, Dillingham, Fisch and Prime to all be unknowns in the overall P-64 realm, it is because they lack a proven track record of P-4 success. I still think this has huge pull. Guys like Sark and Kiffin have grown wiser and ascended. These college coaches are working harder now than they ever have, and some are burning out. On both the HC and AC coach level, it looks to be going younger and charisma is a charm. Personally, I think Lincoln Riley is one step into the NFL. If there is more parity via more teams having a legitimate shot at a championship or long playoff run, perhaps coaches may not jump around with so much frequency. Both schools and coaches may have more patience.
10. College football is big business and always an "arms race." However, with NIL, the TP and still required facilities upgrades the $$$ might become saturated. With the House Settlement cut, once finalized the more you make, it could be the more you have to contribute. I think some schools may contract football or go Div II, however I think most will remain. The question will be Title IX and contraction of other sports. CFB is most schools #1 exposure and a local economic boon.
Last edited:
Yes I will continue to say that good football is not exclusive to FBS.
My general interest has been shifting since COVID-19 hit when they had FCS football in the spring as opposed to the fall. With CU's return to the Big 12, it looks like we will have less of those 8-9 PM MT start times than in the PAC. Also the relaunch of the college football videogame series next month could lead me to watching maybe just live CU games and the rest on demand.
With CU off the P12N and on ESPN+, I will probably watch more CU athletic contests other than football.
You are right. College hockey is a revenue sport but it isn't a big money sport. The moment certain teams are looking at $60-100 million per year in media rights it becomes a whole different thing.
There is some transfer stuff happening but it's a game where guys develop better with some consistency in the system they play and the players around them. Players who are strictly in it for the money and a trip to the NHL skip college and go to juniors instead.
There also is a difference in attitude with hockey players, even those in the NHL that seems to be much more team oriented and discourages players from getting too full of themselves. Even with the Avalanche you have two of the best players in the world in Mac and Makar but those guys would much rather talk about and focus on team success than individual success, and it isn't an act.
Interest has definitely fallen. Do I love the Buffs? F$ck Yes! Will I watch most games? F$ck Yes! Am I as excited as I was and a die hard like I have been? Nope. Already sold the NDSU tix and the Cincy tickets this year and almost paid for my whole season tix. Will attend Homecoming against F$ck Bailer as I have a high school buddy who is a Duck coming in town that really wants to see a game at Folsom. All the rest of the tix are up for sale.
For me it is not paying the players. Good for them, get their share. Totally get that. I do hate the unfettered transfers and full free agency without any rules at all. At least in the NFL you have a few rules that go along with it. Also miss the regional rivalries. Will always hate the Nubs, Ewes and Bailer. We get them all this year which is cool.
Change is the constant and like all older folks, I am not sure constant change is that good for the game and product. The ratings and dollars involved say I am wrong but that is where I am
For me it is not paying the players. Good for them, get their share. Totally get that. I do hate the unfettered transfers and full free agency without any rules at all. At least in the NFL you have a few rules that go along with it. Also miss the regional rivalries. Will always hate the Nubs, Ewes and Bailer. We get them all this year which is cool.
Change is the constant and like all older folks, I am not sure constant change is that good for the game and product. The ratings and dollars involved say I am wrong but that is where I am
Change is inevitable and change is often for the better but that doesn't mean it is always for the better and even when it is there can still be some negative consequences that come with it.
In all seriousness, we do have a problem. Usually a sport can bank on the fans it has had for decades. Their passion may lessen due to changes to life priorities, but you don't lose those people quickly. On average, it's an adjustment over time outside of specific individual life events (got married, had a kid, empty nest, retirement, new job, whatever). In this case, the sport has engaged in fundamental changes which directly caused long-time fans to turn off or tone down. It's a real issue that threatens the health of college athletics. It's a situation of "what I loved and planned my budget & schedule around is not what it is anymore" - the nature of the product has dramatically changed very quickly.
If you don't like threads about how changes in college sports affect our commitment to the sport, then you can stay out of the thread. But please don't come into threads just to **** on them.
BlackNGold
Club Member
I think @DBT has a good point. We all watch for different reasons. My passion for CU Football has definitely waned, although I would not blame it all on NIL and the transfer portal. I still enjoy following CU and cheering them on but it is no longer the center of my life from August thru Bowl season.
I do have concerns about the future of college football in general. So many things going on and things that have to be ironed out. I guess at the moment I am skeptical for the future college athletics.
I do believe the competitive balance is being upset and I fear that CU (along with many other schools) will be at a competitive disadvantage. I have become more of an observer of College Football than a fan. I will still be a CU fan.
I do have concerns about the future of college football in general. So many things going on and things that have to be ironed out. I guess at the moment I am skeptical for the future college athletics.
I do believe the competitive balance is being upset and I fear that CU (along with many other schools) will be at a competitive disadvantage. I have become more of an observer of College Football than a fan. I will still be a CU fan.
You're right. I should not have done that.
But did they bungle them?
Or were they caught out by a string of court decisions that went against them?
I don't think there was "bungling" per se, as much as their hubris finally caught up to them.
They could have gotten ahead of it by beefing up the "progress towards degree" requirements for immediate eligibility. It equates to a 5-year plan. They could have made it a 4-year plan (25% per year instead of 20%). Considering how credits always get lost in the transfer process, very few student-athletes would qualify for immediate eligibility with a 2nd transfer.
My hope is that the issues with college sports are apparent to most parties at every level, from media, to school administrators, to conferences, to athletes, to politicians.
At some point all of these parties will realize that it is in everyone’s best interest to find solutions for the issues that we are all so clearly aware of.
That would definitely help.
It would be interesting if they could actually figure out a way to enforce that transfer credits would be evaluated exactly the same for football transfers as for any other student.
That alone (even with a 5 year plan) would stop everyone but the KjSUs of the world.
This would also force the schools to be more conscious of getting players some kind of education.
It's fine that players are now starting to legally make some money but the vast majority aren't going to make close to enough to carry them the rest of their lives. The vast majority of those same players aren't going to go make a big bank roll in the pros.
They are still associating it with the colleges. I believe they have an obligation to provide the athletes with an opportunity and support to get the benefits of spending 4+ years at an educational institution.
GRM
I'm a ****ty troll
That is an excellent point. Most CFB players attend year-around these days, 5 years to play 4 is not necessary. Also, I don't think the extra Covid year helped the competitive balance or minimized transfers either--that meant playing 5 in 6 years. Also, you have more frequent injury waivers in play too.
I think educational progress and the intra-conference transfer ban prohibitions are a start. The SEC has a ban. Now that player's rights are at the forefront, I'm doubtful Courts will uphold a blanket intra-conference ban (i.e. there will be a good factual case for an athlete to move back home within the SEC), however it makes sense on the competition side and the schools also have the out-of-conference Div I schools argument in most football rich states. For instance, if you leave Ole Miss, you don't have to go to Miss State if your hometown is closer to Southern Miss. I'm confident educational limits progress will be upheld, however that could end up being a conference driven endeavor, as the NCAA is nutted these days.
You can't have unlimited NIL. You can't have Nike buying a team, what's the point? Even the Yankees have a salary cap!
You can't have complete free agency either. A spending cap would limit that.
And it's enforceable. Spend a penny over the salary cap and you are banned for 4 years of play. Easy math.
ESPN, and the elite 20 or so teams will never agree to it. It is their protection. The sport is pretty much dead. Without CP, we would be hurting.
You can't have complete free agency either. A spending cap would limit that.
And it's enforceable. Spend a penny over the salary cap and you are banned for 4 years of play. Easy math.
ESPN, and the elite 20 or so teams will never agree to it. It is their protection. The sport is pretty much dead. Without CP, we would be hurting.
GABuff
Well-Known Member
Over the years I've seen comments along the lines of "get rid of the NCAA and replace it". I think that at it's core the NCAA was intended to be a regulatory body - somewhat along the lines of a pro league commissioner. I'm afraid that my discontent with college football is that the NCAA has been basically replaced with a new regulatory body - a joint partnership between the SEC the BIG 10 and ESPN. The teams outside of the SEC and the BIG 10 aren't going to fair well in the upcoming years.
College football is by far my favorite sport and my interest hasn't waned. Even when CU was so bad for the past almost 20 years that didn't kill my passion for the sport. That's not to say that I'm not bothered by all the recent changes, namely the freedom of movement by players from school to school. But at the same time that has helped someone like CU to quickly turn things around when in the past that would have been a 3-4 year project.
NIL doesn't bother me that much other than it just brings things out in the open and fans tend to focus on that aspect of it more. What I do find annoying about it is that it's just pay for play for the most part, which was not at all the intent of NIL. And the NCAA just sat back and watched.
NIL doesn't bother me that much other than it just brings things out in the open and fans tend to focus on that aspect of it more. What I do find annoying about it is that it's just pay for play for the most part, which was not at all the intent of NIL. And the NCAA just sat back and watched.
Trogdor
Soy Boy
None of it feels good or right but there were always serious problems, whether it was the 90s when 6-5 teams would get left out of bowl games, or well...for 100 years of Alabama handing bags across the table, to the broken poll system determining "champions". When I was younger I didn't realize that stuff was so toxic, but it was. Now we just have a different, more in your face toxicity. At this point, frankly, conferences should be disbanded, revenue shared with collective bargaining, and schedules need to be normalized. It's bat**** crazy insane that the SEC still only plays 8 conference games. It's nonsense that some teams play two FCS opponents a year while one conference doesn't even allow games vs FCS opponents. All this stuff needs to get normalized, but then it's the death entirely of college athletics and the rebirth as a minor league.
And NIL was completely botched by the NCAA. They should have done the revenue sharing that they're doing now from the sportsball video games, but allowing non program constrained entities to pay players is, again, bat**** ****ing crazy insane. We're already seeing teams stash walkons to save scholarships by just paying them. That's super messed up and is undoing 50 years of adjustments the NCAA has rightly made to level the playing field. The baby has gone right out with the bath water.
When Oregon landed a recruit before it meant something. Hey they like the culture, they feel at home, the program is like family, they like the Willamette Valley, whatever. They liked something, genuinely about Eugene and the UO and the program. Now as a fan it's so dissatisfying. Those 4 and 5 stars don't give a flying **** about Oregon football, they're securing the bag. None of this feels good.
Last edited:
Seems like I’m in the minority on this one. Yes, I don’t love that every offseason is now going to be filled with learning a bunch of new players and seeing current ones leave with more frequency. But other than that, I have loved CFB even more the last couple years which I didn’t think was possible. It’s more competitive, storylines are more intriguing, and with the new playoff format CCGs will become important again. I’m also excited to see a playoff with 12 teams where teams outside of the SEC/B1G will get a chance every single year with less bias involved