College football players as amateurs? ESPN agenda.

[Buffnik]

Could not disagree more. In fact, I would be done with "college" football. Drop the pretense then and just create the minor leagues for the NFL. Should have nothing to do with Universities.

Do you want the Florida State vs. Bethune-Cookman type games on the schedule?

Is there a middle ground where people would be more satisfied?

I look ahead a couple years and see a CU non-conference schedule of Hawaii, CSU, UMass and Nicholls State. That's a schedule of "just don't **** up and bank a 4-0 before Pac-12 play starts". That sucks for fans versus what college football could be.

 

[SD Buff]

There is literally not an argument to make towards paying players I will agree to. If the schedule is the issue, can be solved without blowing everything up, killing the non revues sports, dealing with title ix, etc etc.

Not saying it for effect. Pay players, go with an nfl minor leagues sponsored by the University of Colorado, I won't be interested.

No one would know who these star players are if it weren't for college football. No one will know who they are if it turns into the minor league either.

There is a solution without killing this sport by paying players, making them professionals. Such a slippery slope with a whole new set of issues and problems.

Sorry, am unyielding on this.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[bigskybuff]

Buffnik.

I really disagree with your view. Respect your contribution to the board but have zero interest in seeing a minor league nfl scenario. I don't care about or watch the nfl at all. College football is special to me and I would hate what you think is great. The funny thing is, for 99% of the college players who will never make it to the pros, why they play doesnt relate to money but the fact that they love the game and as a side bonus they get their choice of coeds. This may be naive thinking but I just don't want to see college football become so businesslike. It's probably too late for that with the money involved but it doesn't mean I have to accept or like it. Frankly it's my last hope,for sports. BSPN has a been a stain on the sports landscape for the past 15 years and unfortunately will continue to have way too much influence.

 

[MtnBuff]

As I think about this more I can see the NFL being very opposed, even to the point of using their political assets against it.

The NFL is willing to accept the support that the college game gets. There is certainly an overlap but for the most part you have two different audiences. Making the college game another concentrated "pro" type league could lead to competition for some of the fans the NFL considers theirs.

The other effect may be to do a better job of preparing the elite players for the NFL but by creating a few top teams then a big dropoff to the next level it could reduce greatly the quantity of prospects available for the NFL. Look at an NFL roster and see the number of players, including key players who are not from BCS conference schools. One of the things the NFL counts on is having a steady stream of players ready to compete to keep current players motivated and keep cost down on the players who aren't stars.

 

[Buffnik]

I don't know that I agree with everything that's getting pushed out there. I just know that it's coming in some form.

1. We are going to see a change to the college football landscape.
2. It is going to be similar to the last time Division 1 split (back in 1978).
3. I don't know whether the premier division will be D1 or form its own governing body separate from the NCAA.
4. It is almost certain that stipends for athletes that provide them with living expenses (the true cost of attending college) will be part of it.
5. I don't know whether a trickle down of licensing revenue will go to players. I suspect there's too much opposition to that at this stage.
6. I believe that with this change we will also see re-alignment and conference expansion along with a playoff system.

As a fan of a BCS program and BCS football in general, I feel like when this happens I will get more bang from my entertainment dollar both with my season tickets and what I pay for the sports package through my cable provider.

I could actually see the addition of live scrimmages, which are currently not allowed. CU could end up hosting Northern Colorado prior to the season's official games, for example. I'm uncomfortable with changes that would necessitate college football players hiring agents. I'm on board with fewer teams and better games in the premier division, equality in admissions for athletes across the division to create parity, a compelling playoff system, and some of the increased revenue trickling down to college athletes in the form of a stipend similar to what merit scholars receive.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I don't know that I agree with everything that's getting pushed out there. I just know that it's coming in some form.

1. We are going to see a change to the college football landscape.
2. It is going to be similar to the last time Division 1 split (back in 1978).
3. I don't know whether the premier division will be D1 or form its own governing body separate from the NCAA.
4. It is almost certain that stipends for athletes that provide them with living expenses (the true cost of attending college) will be part of it.
5. I don't know whether a trickle down of licensing revenue will go to players. I suspect there's too much opposition to that at this stage.
6. I believe that with this change we will also see re-alignment and conference expansion along with a playoff system.

As a fan of a BCS program and BCS football in general, I feel like when this happens I will get more bang from my entertainment dollar both with my season tickets and what I pay for the sports package through my cable provider.

I could actually see the addition of live scrimmages, which are currently not allowed. CU could end up hosting Northern Colorado prior to the season's official games, for example. I'm uncomfortable with changes that would necessitate college football players hiring agents. I'm on board with fewer teams and better games in the premier division, equality in admissions for athletes across the division to create parity, a compelling playoff system, and some of the increased revenue trickling down to college athletes in the form of a stipend similar to what merit scholars receive.

I would rather CU drop down, or stay at the current level than move up to that scenario.

 

[Highlander]

There seems to be two separate issues that are being jumbled together:
1). Once the term 'stipend' comes up, there are many that assume the new BCS becomes a soulless NFL farm program - it doesn't have to be this way. $500 a month in walking around money does not equal $1m+ pay days with talent going to the highest bidder. It all comes down to delicate execution if this were to happen.

2). A separate group of schools that only play each other creates much more interesting match ups in pre-conference play and then participate in a 32 team playoff at seasons end is a wildly more compelling TV product than what we have today.

More compelling equals significantly more tv revenue which becomes the primary source of revenue as this unfolds. This also shifts the balance of power from those teams that sit in major tv markets of those that don't. If there were to be any bias in this model down the road it would be by the networks trying to influence rules to support the tv markets that bring them more eyeballs and more advertising revenue. In this situation Denver > Omaha > Tuscaloosa > College Station.

I would rather take my chances in this model than how it is now with a handful of rich hayseeds that have nothing else to care about within 200 miles of their alma matter and donating more of their resources than CU can keep up with today. We fare much better in this model, IMO.

 

[SD Buff]

I only see red when this subject comes up, but if we are discussing a modest increase to their stipend, I can get on board with that. Keep in mind, that is a lot of money for most ADs, including CU. How many scholarship athletes does CU have across the board? 200? 1.2M a year extra.

OTOH, if we are talking about giving the star QB an extra 100K walking around money or every single scholarship athlete an extra 20K or some arbritary number so we can move to D4 or 4x16 Supers, I will be done. Most of the points were made in this thread, no need to go over them again. But if they went down this road, figured out a way all 64 programs could operate (which I have serious doubts, even with more money for playoffs) then a school better be able to cut kids they missed on without any problem. Sorry RB3, we missed. GTFO kid. Its just like any other profession, you don't perform- you are gone.

This system is not broken, its the enforcement of the system. The overwhelming majority of these kids are getting a deal of a lifetime.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I only see red when this subject comes up, but if we are discussing a modest increase to their stipend, I can get on board with that. Keep in mind, that is a lot of money for most ADs, including CU. How many scholarship athletes does CU have across the board? 200? 1.2M a year extra.

OTOH, if we are talking about giving the star QB an extra 100K walking around money or every single scholarship athlete an extra 20K or some arbritary number so we can move to D4 or 4x16 Supers, I will be done. Most of the points were made in this thread, no need to go over them again. But if they went down this road, figured out a way all 64 programs could operate (which I have serious doubts, even with more money for playoffs) then a school better be able to cut kids they missed on without any problem. Sorry RB3, we missed. GTFO kid. Its just like any other profession, you don't perform- you are gone.

This system is not broken, its the enforcement of the system. The overwhelming majority of these kids are getting a deal of a lifetime.

Don't players already get money? Not a lot, but something?

 

[SD Buff]

Meaning a stipend? Yes. I believe the number is $1,100 a month if you choose to live off campus. Again, I would be totally OK with increasing that stipend. Especially with CU in mind, the cost of living in Boulder is probably one of the highest in the country. I don't want scholarship athletes to starve or have to live with three in a room or anything. The stipend amount should be corrected. To me, this is a very different subject than 'paying' scholarship athletes.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Meaning a stipend? Yes. I believe the number is $1,100 a month if you choose to live off campus. Again, I would be totally OK with increasing that stipend. Especially with CU in mind, the cost of living in Boulder is probably one of the highest in the country. I don't want scholarship athletes to starve or have to live with three in a room or anything. The stipend amount should be corrected. To me, this is a very different subject than 'paying' scholarship athletes.

I agree - I've got absolutely no problem with them increasing the stipend. That money comes through the University. Of course - Title IX makes it so that EVERY player (regardless of sport) gets the same stipend. That may not be a huge pill for the likes of CU - but there are a lot of athletic programs where an increase in the stipend money is going to be a pretty high burden.

 

[Buffnik]

I agree - I've got absolutely no problem with them increasing the stipend. That money comes through the University. Of course - Title IX makes it so that EVERY player (regardless of sport) gets the same stipend. That may not be a huge pill for the likes of CU - but there are a lot of athletic programs where an increase in the stipend money is going to be a pretty high burden.

Stipend might be paid by the conference.

 

[SD Buff]

That may not be a huge pill for the likes of CU - but there are a lot of athletic programs where an increase in the stipend money is going to be a pretty high burden.

Which is Nik's point of going to Division 4 or whatever governing body they choose. As it is today, what is the number? ~20 athletic departments running in the black? Guess I do have more wiggle room here. Go to D4 and only play amongst the 64 teams with a playoff system. Everything else stays the same, but the extra money is used to an increased stipend for all scholarship athletes (Title IX) and increased oversight/enforcement of the rules. Can go that far, but think thats the limit.

 

[DBT]

Found some NCAA stats. If stipends ever happen, they will have to be across the board for all scholarship athletes. I figure CU has about 120 scholarship athletes. At, say, $2,000 per year, that would be around $240,000 per year. I'm not sure how that cuts into the bottom line for CU, but right now, we seem to be operating in the red.

NCAA Stat Sheet: http://www.statisticbrain.com/ncaa-college-athletics-statistics/

 

[SD Buff]

I figure CU has about 120 scholarship athletes.

You are almost at 120 with just Football, Mens and Womens Basketball. Add Volleyball, Mens and womens golf, womens soccer, xcountry, skiing, womens lax.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Found some NCAA stats. If stipends ever happen, they will have to be across the board for all scholarship athletes. I figure CU has about 120 scholarship athletes. At, say, $2,000 per year, that would be around $240,000 per year. I'm not sure how that cuts into the bottom line for CU, but right now, we seem to be operating in the red.

NCAA Stat Sheet: http://www.statisticbrain.com/ncaa-college-athletics-statistics/

$2,000 per year would be less than $200 a month. That'd a bargain bin for stipends, imo. CU has scholarship athletes in football (85), men's basketball (13), women's basketball (15), men's golf (4.5), women's golf (6), men's cross country/track & field (12.6), women's cross country/track & field (18), men's skiing (6.3), women's skiing (7.0), lacrosse (12), soccer (14), tennis (8) and volleyball (12). That's 213.4 NCAA scholarship athletes. At $2,000 a year - that'd be $426,800 per year.

 

[DBT]

$2,000 per year would be less than $200 a month. That'd a bargain bin for stipends, imo. CU has scholarship athletes in football (85), men's basketball (13), women's basketball (15), men's golf (4.5), women's golf (6), men's cross country/track & field (12.6), women's cross country/track & field (18), men's skiing (6.3), women's skiing (7.0), lacrosse (12), soccer (14), tennis (8) and volleyball (12). That's 213.4 NCAA scholarship athletes. At $2,000 a year - that'd be $426,800 per year.

Yeah, my bad. I'd calculated around 220 and then had a brain fart and thought I'd remembered it being 120. I just think even a small stipend like $2,000 would kill many programs who barely make ends meet. Thus, non revenue sports would be eliminated.

 

[Liver]

Yeah, my bad. I'd calculated around 220 and then had a brain fart and thought I'd remembered it being 120. I just think even a small stipend like $2,000 would kill many programs who barely make ends meet. Thus, non revenue sports would be eliminated.

this is not correct. first, a large a majority of the fbs schools IN MAJOR CONFERENCES already support a stipend at or near this level, including CU. the resistance is coming from the fbs schools that aren't in major conferences (because they don't have big tv revenue). don't mistake a short term cash issue (for CU) with the long term revenue we will be receiving. our prognosis is more than just healthy-- it is robust. all those kills fees and coaches' severances took a short term toll.

your opinion "thus, non-revenue sports would be eliminated" is also completely off the mark.

title 9 still would apply. and the stipend would need to be paid to all scholarship athletes, not just football players. funding for this, to a large extent, would come from the expanded playoff system and the giant tv revenue that would create. look to the impact of the expanded ncaa tourney for a roadmap of what would happen.

i understand some folks don't like the move in this direction, spiritually. and, i can't say they are wrong, spiritually. but, this is, i think, nearly inevitable at this point. it is only a matter of time.

let's try to not color the conversation, however, with breath-takingly silly statements like this is a "program killer" and would result in the death of non-rev sports. that's just not true.

 

[SD Buff]

The target keeps moving. Are you paying football players across the board or increasing the off campus stipend to include a more reasonable cost of living?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Liver]

The target keeps moving. Are you paying football players across the board or increasing the off campus stipend to include a more reasonable cost of living?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

i think it goes in steps. i don't believe anyone in this thread (other than from those trying to inflame sentiment against this) suggested a free-for-all of pay. i think the way it would work is that there would be basically a payscale that would apply (couched, perhaps, as a stipend) to all players at all major schools in the system.

one major open point, among a number, is likeness/name royalties. i suspect the easiest answer might be that it gets pooled and distributed rather than allowing athletes to cut individual deals, but it is certainly an open point.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

The target keeps moving. Are you paying football players across the board or increasing the off campus stipend to include a more reasonable cost of living?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

This combined with a 16 team playoff would be acceptable to me. I want no part of an exclusive BCS league where non-BCS teams are not eligible for the playoff.

 

[Liver]

This combined with a 16 team playoff would be acceptable to me. I want no part of an exclusive BCS league where non-BCS teams are not eligible for the playoff.

yeah, missing out on that riveting ohio state v. famu game would be heartbreaking. i kid. i kid.

the current system is broken-- the haves are getting fat on the weak now. if the majors can only play the other majors, you'd have much more competitive balance.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

yeah, missing out on that riveting ohio state v. famu game would be heartbreaking. i kid. i kid.

the current system is broken-- the haves are getting fat on the weak now. if the majors can only play the other majors, you'd have much more competitive balance.

No it wouldn't. It would continue to whittle down to the top 10 teams owning everything.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

No it wouldn't. It would continue to whittle down to the top 10 teams owning everything.

I think this is likely true. Even with millions coming in the door, there would be teams that would be the "cellar dwellars." i.e. Iowa State, Kentucky, Indiana, etc. Colorado would have a very difficult time competing in a league comprised 100% of the elite.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

THE FCS games really don't bother me. For starters, I really enjoy it when a FCS school knocks off a respectable BCS program. Who didn't enjoy seeming all the fans in purple crying after their loss to NDSU. The problem in the past was that almost everyone scheduled these games during week 1 or 2, and that made for some pretty grim viewing.

It seems like teams are doing a better job spacing the FCS games out over the course of the first 4 weeks with the SEC often scheduling them mid-season. It makes it more watchable as there is often a decent game on at all times.

 

[sackman]

I think CU would have a difficult time competing in the environment that liver describes. We'd be the Cleveland Browns of college football, where our "owners" wouldn't be willing to spend what it takes to build a winner. Would not like.