The Rest of College Football

[hack]

Good conversation save for the embedded bits of osu propaganda. Bottom-line is that osu is doing a great job ticking compliance boxes whilst creating a different reality. Anyhow, I just don't see how this changes while the NCAA is still in charge. It's going to get worse.

[lineygoblue]

As a guess -- the money goes to a handler (recall, Jordan Diamond had a handler who "scouted" out Columbus a few days in advance of his OV) via another 3rd party (i.e., non-booster). The handler disburses the money on some basis (monthly, weekly, whatever) in pure cash. He gets a fee. So, Boosters==>non-booster==>handler==>recruit. Good luck tracing that. That's what Auburn did with Newton (I think -- obviously, I don't "know").

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[entropy]

a free for all would destroy college sports. There would be no level playing field ever again.

you'd have to go to the NFL salary cap... And at that point, why have CF even associated with the college.

[Hannibal]

I don't understand why we should have a problem paying young athletes to attend the University. Really don't.

It's because we find charm in amateurism. But amateurism is basically gone. We're trying to preserve the illusion of amateurism now.

[entropy]

I think you hit the nail on the head.

to be clear.. I don't think anyone in the SEC is paying 85 athletes. But I think payments are being made.

Auburn's inner circle is the same circle that got them on probation in the early 1990's. A&M has cheated for years to compete with Texas. Does anyone really think Miles wouldn't look the other way.

Guys are getting cash/gifts/women/etc to come and probably after to make plays. I really believe it.

[Hannibal]

a free for all would destroy college sports.

No -- it would bring parity and fairness back to sports.

It might even make college football better again by making a college choice a pure enjoyment choice again, instead of a financial one. There will still be "highest bidder" type players, but more often than not, there will be a going rate for a guy and you will basically just have to match it. It would get sleazy asshole bagmen out of the sport. The impact of sleazebag parents will be minimized. It might encourage borderline guys to stay in school.

Right now, the SEC is the former USSR hockey team, and the rest of the country is the American hockey team. Once every ten tries, we will experience a Miracle on ice type of upset. The rest of the time, it's academic.

[entropy]

Michigan could afford a lot more to pay players than Purdue could. period. Your biggest schools would replace the SEC dominance, but it would still be the same thing. The only difference would be Michigan would now be in the mix.

[iam416]

a free for all would destroy college sports. There would be no level playing field ever again.

you'd have to go to the NFL salary cap... And at that point, why have CF even associated with the college.

Yeah, and unless the cap was large enough, I'd assume folks would still use the same methods of getting around it. I mean, if the cap is $2M, that's roughly $23K per player. That means an extra $10K here or there would be a significant increase. The cap would have to be more like $20M. And that's crazy.

It's because we find charm in amateurism.

The IOC and NCAA can go fuck themselves for saddling us with that bullshit. I still go back to early CFB days when using ringers and paying players was done openly.

But, the NCAA needed legitimacy. They needed a reason to be. So the noble amateur was born and the white knight protecting that image rode in to the rescue. Goddamn UK for acquiescing to the NCAA in the late 40s/early 50s and giving them legitimacy.

[entropy]

give these kids 20K a year and a lot goes away. most payments, i would think, are not that big. at a certain point, Boosters can't pay everyone.

[The Oracle]

How does anyone think any of this is plausible without Title IX being addressed? Or are we paying lacrosse players the same?

[Hannibal]

Michigan could afford a lot more to pay players than Purdue could. period. Your biggest schools would replace the SEC dominance, but it would still be the same thing. The only difference would be Michigan would now be in the mix.

You're right, but at least there would be more top schools in that mix. I'd like to see Penn State and Nebraska back in there too.

I'm not sure that the relationship between a program like Michigan and Purdue would change though. I think that it would still be the same as it is now. Michigan would get basically anyone that they wanted in a head-to-head battle. Purdue would improve relative to, say, Ole Miss or Baylor.

[Hannibal]

give these kids 20K a year and a lot goes away. most payments, i would think, are not that big. at a certain point, Boosters can't pay everyone.

$20 per year for 85 kids? Actually, thanks to Title IX, you've got to do more than that if you're taking about stipends.

How does anyone think any of this is plausible without Title IX being addressed? Or are we paying lacrosse players the same?

If you simply stop policing payments, then Title IX is not a factor.

[iam416]

Michigan could afford a lot more to pay players than Purdue could. period. Your biggest schools would replace the SEC dominance, but it would still be the same thing. The only difference would be Michigan would now be in the mix.

Correct. It would be a reversion back to the pre-scholarship limit days and THEN SOME. I'd argue, though, that under the rules, as they exist if perfectly enforced, M and OSU already enjoy a massively unfair advantage over Purdue in terms of tradition, name-value, facilities and coaching staffs. If you chucked the rules, how much worse does it get for the Purdues of the world? That's a fair question.

On the whole, it'd be worse, no doubt. That said, they're one uber-rich booster away from approaching parity (see Okie State/Oregon).

I guess where I come out on this is that there are roughly 15-25 college programs capable of winning a BCS title right now. That's it. In the past 30 years, the non-SEC schools to win a national title are ND, Clemson, BYU, FSU, GT, Miami, Oklahoma, Penn State, Washington, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, USC and Texas (I think -- that's off the top of my head). Throw in 5 SEC programs, and it's 18 different schools. Of those 19, BYU and GT obviously have no real chance these days (as does PSU for different reasons). Maybe add Oregon to the mix and maybe Georgia and maybe one more program, and you have 20 programs with a realistic chance to win a BCS title. That's it.

Will the "wild, wild, west" change that number? I don't think so.

However, it will increase the gap between the haves and havenots.

[hack]

Michigan does stand to benefit perhaps more than any other program, when you consider the size and relative affluence of the alumni base, the degree of success achieved already and the relatively cleanliness of the program.

[The Oracle]

$20 per year for 85 kids? Actually, thanks to Title IX, you've got to do more than that if you're taking about stipends.



If you simply stop policing payments, then Title IX is not a factor.

Of course, but we know that's not gonna happen. At least on the record. Or maybe they've already done that and most of the BIG is just slow to adapt, like normal.