Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Death of College Football and Amateurism

Buffnik said:
Has anyone considered that the fans & boosters of many programs who are willing & able to come up with $10k a year to support recruiting are already tapped out at certain programs?

CU doesn’t have the infrastructure of behind-the-scenes bagman boosters that we need to compete at the highest levels.

But we may very well have just as much in the way of above-board opportunities from businesspeople looking to promote their brand through athletes.

A rule like CAs could actually level the playing field vs the SEC.
Click to expand...
There are those that like to live on the fringe, and those that like to follow the rules. The rule followers will step up and and support recruiting if it's legal and can be tied to something tangible (like player X joining the team). I think we'll definitely see the gap between the have and have-nots increase if this plays out as currently proposed. But I bet we'll see quite a bit of legal jockeying over the next 3 years.
 
married2abuff said:
There are those that like to live on the fringe, and those that like to follow the rules. The rule followers will step up and and support recruiting if it's legal and can be tied to something tangible (like player X joining the team). I think we'll definitely see the gap between the have and have-nots increase if this plays out as currently proposed. But I bet we'll see quite a bit of legal jockeying over the next 3 years.
Click to expand...
I think it benefits schools in big markets. Similar to why certain NBA teams have such an advantage in free agency — bigger media marketing opportunities.
 
Buffnik said:
I think it benefits schools in big markets. Similar to why certain NBA teams have such an advantage in free agency — bigger media marketing opportunities.
Click to expand...
If bigger markets mean a bigger following/contributing alumni base, then I agree. I don't think it's necessarily geographical.
 
Buffnik said:
Has anyone considered that the fans & boosters of many programs who are willing & able to come up with $10k a year to support recruiting are already tapped out at certain programs?

CU doesn’t have the infrastructure of behind-the-scenes bagman boosters that we need to compete at the highest levels.

But we may very well have just as much in the way of above-board opportunities from businesspeople looking to promote their brand through athletes.

A rule like CAs could actually level the playing field vs the SEC.
Click to expand...
I agree to the extent that we really don’t know the impact this will have. Lots of hand wringing over something that nobody has the first clue how it will be implemented or the ramifications.
 
Buffnik said:
Has anyone considered that the fans & boosters of many programs who are willing & able to come up with $10k a year to support recruiting are already tapped out at certain programs?

CU doesn’t have the infrastructure of behind-the-scenes bagman boosters that we need to compete at the highest levels.

But we may very well have just as much in the way of above-board opportunities from businesspeople looking to promote their brand through athletes.

A rule like CAs could actually level the playing field vs the SEC.
Click to expand...


SIAP but a good article which touches on this very thing, and also that this won't drastically change things.

This actually may level the playing field. Right now Baylor, let alone Boise State, rarely beats Alabama for a recruit. By bringing everything above board, who knows? Isn’t there more money to be made being a three-year starter in a city such as Waco or Boise, where you are the undeniable star, rather than just another cog in the huge machine of the Crimson Tide or playing for USC in the crowded Los Angeles market?

Do you realize how popular Bryce Petty (Baylor) or Kellen Moore (Boise) still are in their college towns? Would they have been at Alabama? Seems like more schools, not fewer, would have a recruiting pitch.

Does Alabama have crazy boosters that will throw down stupid money? Yes. But every school has crazy boosters that will throw down stupid money. Have you seen these weight rooms?
In the end, a loose salary cap will set itself. It may seem like every car dealer in the SEC will be offering up half-million dollar deals, but reality won’t work that way. Business is business. You can only sell so many F-150s. Trust the free market.
Click to expand...

sports.yahoo.com

California is forcing the NCAA's hand — and no, the college sports world isn’t going to end

Despite what critics are howling, the newly signed California bill allowing players to profit off their name, image and likeness isn't the destruction of college athletics.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
My county in Florida has a school choice program that allows parents to select and order eight schools that they would like to see their child attend. From there a lottery system of sorts assigns each student K-12 a school. The idea being that some children in bad and impoverished neighborhoods will get the opportunity to attend the best schools and set them up for a better future. Ultimately, the system comes from a good place and is attempting to right a wrong that is pretty hard for us to get our arms around.

But the system has caused unforeseen problems that has led to bad outcomes for more students than it’s ultimately helped. Children taking hour long bus rides starting at 6am, tax dollars increasing to support this bus program, siblings winding up at different schools due to this lottery, and people with means still manipulating the system to ensure their children wind up at the best schools.

The reason I write all of this is to draw parallels to this new CA bill. The legislation comes from a good place and is intended to bring fairness to an inherently unfair system. The problem in both cases is lawmakers are approaching a very complex issue with a solution that is impractical and embarrassingly naive.

I would like to see as a solution the formation of a true minor league system. The NFL should pay for it. After all, they are also benefiting from the feeder system known as the NCAA, but bearing none of the burden. This offers kids coming up a couple of choices- make a salary in a true minor league, or plan for life after football by going the college route. I have more thoughts on this, but I’m sure everyone’s already tired of reading the ideas I’ve shared.
 
Gary Indiana said:
My county in Florida has a school choice program that allows parents to select and order eight schools that they would like to see their child attend. From there a lottery system of sorts assigns each student K-12 a school. The idea being that some children in bad and impoverished neighborhoods will get the opportunity to attend the best schools and set them up for a better future. Ultimately, the system comes from a good place and is attempting to right a wrong that is pretty hard for us to get our arms around.

But the system has caused unforeseen problems that has led to bad outcomes for more students than it’s ultimately helped. Children taking hour long bus rides starting at 6am, tax dollars increasing to support this bus program, siblings winding up at different schools due to this lottery, and people with means still manipulating the system to ensure their children wind up at the best schools.

The reason I write all of this is to draw parallels to this new CA bill. The legislation comes from a good place and is intended to bring fairness to an inherently unfair system. The problem in both cases is lawmakers are approaching a very complex issue with a solution that is impractical and embarrassingly naive.

I would like to see as a solution the formation of a true minor league system. The NFL should pay for it. After all, they are also benefiting from the feeder system known as the NCAA, but bearing none of the burden. This offers kids coming up a couple of choices- make a salary in a true minor league, or plan for life after football by going the college route. I have more thoughts on this, but I’m sure everyone’s already tired of reading the ideas I’ve shared.
Click to expand...
Say what you will, but Gary Indiana is nothing if not self-aware.
 
Gary Indiana said:
My county in Florida has a school choice program that allows parents to select and order eight schools that they would like to see their child attend. From there a lottery system of sorts assigns each student K-12 a school. The idea being that some children in bad and impoverished neighborhoods will get the opportunity to attend the best schools and set them up for a better future. Ultimately, the system comes from a good place and is attempting to right a wrong that is pretty hard for us to get our arms around.

But the system has caused unforeseen problems that has led to bad outcomes for more students than it’s ultimately helped. Children taking hour long bus rides starting at 6am, tax dollars increasing to support this bus program, siblings winding up at different schools due to this lottery, and people with means still manipulating the system to ensure their children wind up at the best schools.

The reason I write all of this is to draw parallels to this new CA bill. The legislation comes from a good place and is intended to bring fairness to an inherently unfair system. The problem in both cases is lawmakers are approaching a very complex issue with a solution that is impractical and embarrassingly naive.

I would like to see as a solution the formation of a true minor league system. The NFL should pay for it. After all, they are also benefiting from the feeder system known as the NCAA, but bearing none of the burden. This offers kids coming up a couple of choices- make a salary in a true minor league, or plan for life after football by going the college route. I have more thoughts on this, but I’m sure everyone’s already tired of reading the ideas I’ve shared.
Click to expand...

Yup. 100% agree. It’s not as cut and dry as they make it, I’m for the changes but scared of the ramifications.
 
college_athletes.png
 
The more I think about it, and as cynical as I am about CA politics, I think this is just a way for the state to enable taxing college players.
 
hawg1 said:
Or maybe, like many other states with soon-to-be legislation, it’s just merely the right and fair thing to do for the athletes.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell but I really see college football (which is the only real college sport I watch anymore, sometimes basketball) is in for some major changes. And no one knows what those changes will be.
 
Buffnik said:
Has anyone considered that the fans & boosters of many programs who are willing & able to come up with $10k a year to support recruiting are already tapped out at certain programs?

CU doesn’t have the infrastructure of behind-the-scenes bagman boosters that we need to compete at the highest levels.

But we may very well have just as much in the way of above-board opportunities from businesspeople looking to promote their brand through athletes.

A rule like CAs could actually level the playing field vs the SEC.
Click to expand...
 
So the Cali schools are going to start incorporating into recruiting speeches, right? If this goes in effect in 23' those kids are already being recruited.
 
ChillyBuff said:
Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell but I really see college football (which is the only real college sport I watch anymore, sometimes basketball) is in for some major changes. And no one knows what those changes will be.
Click to expand...
No, we don't know the impact. It will beinteresting. I do know this, the more CFB becomes like the NFL, the less interested I will be.
 
CU may not be the big winner if this happens, but it will be on the good side of the curve.
 
Buffs35 said:
Klatt was on 104.3 this morning. Said he hoped this push would bring payments out of the shadows. Also mentioned that the going rate for a 5* recruit was 300k. Seems high to me. Interview starts at 5 min, but college talk doesn't start until 15 min.

http://1043thefan.com/category/podcast_player/?a=ec46c4cc-eaa6-4b08-a3a1-aada00f68e9d&sid=1149&n=Schlereth+and+Evans
Click to expand...
At least they did talk college sports today. Klatt is a COLLEGE analyst and they always only ask him about the Broncos. The fan sucks.
 
Buffnik said:
I think it benefits schools in big markets. Similar to why certain NBA teams have such an advantage in free agency — bigger media marketing opportunities.
Click to expand...

I liked what Klatt said (his segments on 104.3 are must listen radio) about it-I think this can definitely be a good thing, and this is a good start. No reason why we need to force athletes to turn pro. As far as the recruiting impacts-I gotta think it can only help.
 
Last edited:
Stewart Mandel had a good point on the Athletic. I think a way to somewhat make things fair is to have everyone use fair market value for the benefit they get from these players. So whatever fair market value is for a guy showing up in a car dealership commercial is, that's what these players get so it's not just exorbitant amounts of money for a commercial that the Alabama's of the world could afford while the Boise State's of the world could not.

I think allowing them to make money off their likeness is one of the most logical ways to go about it because it doesn't cut down on the budget of AD's that already are cutting it close. It's the way they go about allowing it and what the stipulations are that will affect how successful this is. There are already payments being made to players across the country, this will just bring it above surface. Sure there will be some more money coming to Alabama players but there will also be more money coming to CU players because of people that didn't want to do anything illegal now have a legal way to provide money to a student athlete. There's already imbalance in college football with 6 or 7 programs getting pretty much any recruit they want over the lower tier schools, I don't think that it can become that much worse, but who knows maybe I'm wrong. Either way, these kids need to have the ability to make money like any other student, it's bull**** that they can't already.
 
Buffnik said:
Has anyone considered that the fans & boosters of many programs who are willing & able to come up with $10k a year to support recruiting are already tapped out at certain programs?

CU doesn’t have the infrastructure of behind-the-scenes bagman boosters that we need to compete at the highest levels.

But we may very well have just as much in the way of above-board opportunities from businesspeople looking to promote their brand through athletes.

A rule like CAs could actually level the playing field vs the SEC.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I disagree. The cultish fervor that programs like ‘braska and the SEC programs have would motivate them to invent multitudes of ways to pass money to players. They would parlay that into enticements for recruits. A school like CU could never match them. It would be akin to the Rockies competing against the Dodgers.
 
If I were the NCAA and wanted to combat this I would reduce scholarships allowed from 85 to, say, 80 or 75 and annual scholarships from 25 to around 20.
 
just heard an interesting idea on the cover 3 podcast. You can’t have any profit made off your name, image, or likeness until your sophomore year. That way, it’s a little bit less of an effect on recruiting because you can’t guarantee these deals for kids since they might not be there the following year or they might be a bust in regards to their rating.
 
DBT said:
If I were the NCAA and wanted to combat this I would reduce scholarships allowed from 85 to, say, 80 or 75 and annual scholarships from 25 to around 20.
Click to expand...
Not sure what that would solve. That would just mean a lot fewer kids get to go to College, many of whom use athletics as a way to get out of a bad lifestyle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top