The House Settlement (Officially Paying Players)

[BrewingFrog]

You have that right now, eh? Fordham vs Merrimack, Towson vs Elon, Stonehill vs Wagner would all fit that bill. More interesting than TCU vs UNC? You might be in the minority there but more power to you.

Well, you tell me: A bunch of guys wearing a particular color jersey, with no affiliation whatsoever with the "school" they are allegedly playing for, getting paid for their labors and not really caring about anything other than that, or, actual Student Athletes at some smaller college? My point is not "Oh, it's a more athletic and whizz-bang game!" but more a "Hey, these guys actually give a parboiled crap!"

At the New and Improved "College" Football pantheon, there is no loyalty. Only money. And, this money will be spread around to kids without the level of maturity (such as it is in these sad times) that those years of College used to provide. It's 18 year-olds with a million bucks! Get ready for a zillion Zach Evans clones...

We used to be told that the Non-BCS Programs were inferior, usually by the same people who are now telling us how superior the new MegaConferences will be. Their word is just as good now as it was then. I quit the NFL when they made teams stop playing defense ("Illegal Contact" etc.), and haven't gone back. The volleyball matches that games have become is not interesting anymore. "Oooh! So-and-so passed for 10,000 yards this season! A new League record!" Of course he did! You changed the rules! The same imbeciles are now fully in charge of "College" Football, and the same ridiculous crap will be flowing into that game, too.

There's about two more years until the corpse of College Football As We Knew It will stop twitching. The bullet went through it's skull a couple of years ago, and what remaining energy it has is slowly fading. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[Wexahu]

Well, you tell me: A bunch of guys wearing a particular color jersey, with no affiliation whatsoever with the "school" they are allegedly playing for, getting paid for their labors and not really caring about anything other than that, or, actual Student Athletes at some smaller college? My point is not "Oh, it's a more athletic and whizz-bang game!" but more a "Hey, these guys actually give a parboiled crap!"

At the New and Improved "College" Football pantheon, there is no loyalty. Only money. And, this money will be spread around to kids without the level of maturity (such as it is in these sad times) that those years of College used to provide. It's 18 year-olds with a million bucks! Get ready for a zillion Zach Evans clones...

We used to be told that the Non-BCS Programs were inferior, usually by the same people who are now telling us how superior the new MegaConferences will be. Their word is just as good now as it was then. I quit the NFL when they made teams stop playing defense ("Illegal Contact" etc.), and haven't gone back. The volleyball matches that games have become is not interesting anymore. "Oooh! So-and-so passed for 10,000 yards this season! A new League record!" Of course he did! You changed the rules! The same imbeciles are now fully in charge of "College" Football, and the same ridiculous crap will be flowing into that game, too.

There's about two more years until the corpse of College Football As We Knew It will stop twitching. The bullet went through it's skull a couple of years ago, and what remaining energy it has is slowly fading. Enjoy it while you can.

I don't love all the new rules made over years but the NFL game is actually pretty good. At least it involves the very best players in the game playing and teams managing rosters under a strict set of rules that ensures some fair competition.

The game itself will evolve, you can either choose to like it or not. Way back in the day there was hardly any passing and it resembled rugby. I think that would suck too. At what point in time was football just right to you?

 

[NovaScotiaFrog]

Well, you tell me: A bunch of guys wearing a particular color jersey, with no affiliation whatsoever with the "school" they are allegedly playing for, getting paid for their labors and not really caring about anything other than that, or, actual Student Athletes at some smaller college? My point is not "Oh, it's a more athletic and whizz-bang game!" but more a "Hey, these guys actually give a parboiled crap!"

I'll take the bolded one, please and thank you. Especially as the post above notes when they are the best under 22(ish) players in the country compared to future lawyers and insurance reps.

 

[BrewingFrog]

I'll take the bolded one, please and thank you. Especially as the post above notes when they are the best under 22(ish) players in the country compared to future lawyers and insurance reps.

You're welcome to it. You will likely find that, in time, you will long for what was instead of what they are feeding you.

 

[NovaScotiaFrog]

You're welcome to it. You will likely find that, in time, you will long for what was instead of what they are feeding you.

Don't think that's all that likely. If what you were saying was true, if there was so much longing for the halcyon days of amateur sports where students coached by teachers played sports in their spare time...why aren't the games I listed before drawing better than the current product you seem to despise?

 

[Wexahu]

Don't think that's all that likely. If what you were saying was true, if there was so much longing for the halcyon days of amateur sports where students coached by teachers played sports in their spare time...why aren't the games I listed before drawing better than the current product you seem to despise?

Mostly because the media chooses not to cover it, for a variety of reasons. The ability of the players matters a little, but not that much. People aren't packing stadiums because the players are so good at what they do. The players could be easily replaced by others.

As I said earlier, any NBA G league team would be better than most P4 programs, and the better ones would be good enough to win an NCAA championship. Yet they draw only about 2k fans per year and the league can't make any money without being supported by the NBA. If the quality of play on the field is what really matters, why is that?

Did WNBA players all of the sudden get a lot better over the past year, causing so many more people to watch and care? Or did ESPN's media blitz surrounding Caitlyn Clark suddenly get people to pay a little bit of attention to it simply because it's in the news.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

You have that right now, eh? Fordham vs Merrimack, Towson vs Elon, Stonehill vs Wagner would all fit that bill. More interesting than TCU vs UNC? You might be in the minority there but more power to you.

I noticed you didn’t mention any players’ names. Unwittingly, you just made Wexahu’s case that people show up to see the brand, not the individual players.

 

[NovaScotiaFrog]

Mostly because the media chooses not to cover it, for a variety of reasons. The ability of the players matters a little, but not that much. People aren't packing stadiums because the players are so good at what they do. The players could be easily replaced by others.

As I said earlier, any NBA G league team would be better than most P4 programs, and the better ones would be good enough to win an NCAA championship. Yet they draw only about 2k fans per year and the league can't make any money without being supported by the NBA. If the quality of play on the field is what really matters, why is that?

Did WNBA players all of the sudden get a lot better over the past year, causing so many more people to watch and care? Or did ESPN's media blitz surrounding Caitlyn Clark suddenly get people to pay a little bit of attention to it simply because it's in the news.

It's interesting to me that you continue to say the quality of player doesn't matter...and then cite two different examples where the quality of player is the reason why people don't watch. The WNBA ratings doubled when their generational best player showed up and then tanked when she goes on the shelf, the G League doesn't draw because it stinks compared to the NBA (that is the comparison, not the NCAA, though I disagree with you that the G-League would win NCAA championships).

These players are not so easily replaced. Look no further than the UFL for proof.

 

[NovaScotiaFrog]

I noticed you didn’t mention any players’ names. Unwittingly, you just made Wexahu’s case that people show up to see the brand, not the individual players.

You don't know the players names because they aren't very good compared to what you see at the FBS level. That's the point.

The idea that you could put Fordham players in an Alabama jersey and it not affect interest is folly. It's been proven false plenty of times.

 

[Wexahu]

It's interesting to me that you continue to say the quality of player doesn't matter...and then cite two different examples where the quality of player is the reason why people don't watch. The WNBA ratings tank when their generational best player goes on the shelf, the G League because it stinks compared to the NBA (that is the comparison, not the NCAA, though I disagree with you that the G-League would win NCAA championships).

These players are not so easily replaced. Look no further than the UFL for proof.

She's as much a media creation as she is a "generational best player". She's good, but she isn't better than what Diana Taurasi, Lisa Leslie or a dozen others were.

Why is the NBA the comparison to the G League? It's still basketball. You said the talent is what people pay to see, why do they choose to watch inferior talent in the NCAA over the G league?

If the NCAA and universities decided they were done with football and basketball, these players and their talent wouldn't be worth much at all. Conversely, if every player on a P4 team decided to quit right now, the schools could re-load their rosters and the games would go on and money would keep coming in. Maybe not quite as much, but enough to make it all worthwhile. Most fans at games don't even know who they are watching, they just see the jersey and cheer.

 

[NovaScotiaFrog]

She's as much a media creation as she is a "generational best player". She's good, but she isn't better than what Diana Taurasi, Lisa Leslie or a dozen others were.

Now you're just using circular logic. Quality of player doesn't matter just brands, but there's really no such thing as good players and they are just a product of branding hype too? I don't know that you'll find too many people who won't concede that Caitlyn Clark is bigger than the WNBA, but that kinda blows up your claim that players don't matter.

Of course, the question then becomes "if it was so easy for the brand to hype up a player as a generational difference maker. ...why didn't they do it with Diana Tauradi or Lisa Leslie?" The obvious answer is "those players weren't as good".

Why is the NBA the comparison to the G League? It's still basketball

Because those are pro-age players eligible for the NBA. Most college players aren't, it's a different talent pool. When they do declare for the NBA draft, the players you're talking about end up playing on the league itself.

You said the talent is what people pay to see, why do they choose to watch inferior talent in the NCAA over the G league?

Looking at the G-League MVPs vs the rosters of national title teams, I'm not so sure the NCAA is inferior talent.

If the NCAA and universities decided they were done with football and basketball, these players and their talent wouldn't be worth much at all. Conversely, if every player on a P4 team decided to quit right now, the schools could re-load their rosters and the games would go on and money would keep coming in. Maybe not quite as much, but enough to make it all worthwhile. Most fans at games don't even know who they are watching, they just see the jersey and cheer.

You keep stating this without any regard for the counter examples you've been provided.

 

[Showtime Joe 2.0]

I used to work with a young lawyer in Detroit who claimed that he was in the Guiness Book of World Records for being, statistically, one of the greatest college running backs of all time. Sure enough, he racked up some incredible stats playing for a Division III school with less than 2,000 students in rural Michigan. But he was no taller than 5'4'' and could not have weighed more than 120 lbs. I think I could've put him on the floor with a one-handed shove.

Would I ever pay money to see guys like him play in person or spend time watching their games on TV? No, and hell no.

While I don't like the new transfer rules, I believe that the astounding amount of money in Power 4 football now will enhance the talent level of those teams as a number of really good players will actually stick around in college and use up their eligibility before embarking (they hope) on an NFL career.

As for the non-Power 4 FBS schools? Sadly, I think they're in for a tough ride.

Thank God we got into the Big 12 when we did!

 

[BrewingFrog]

Don't think that's all that likely. If what you were saying was true, if there was so much longing for the halcyon days of amateur sports where students coached by teachers played sports in their spare time...why aren't the games I listed before drawing better than the current product you seem to despise?

I will not hold myself out as an authority on what "the public" wants to watch. Apparently, some imbecile crap TV show called "Survivor" was quite staggeringly popular in recent times. Thus, what the MegaConference will dole out will be appealing. I'm sure you and the rest who would watch whatever was shoveled out to you will enjoy it. To me, it is roughly the same thing.

Enjoy it. I'm not holding you back. It's all yours...

 

[Wexahu]

I used to work with a young lawyer in Detroit who claimed that he was in the Guiness Book of World Records for being, statistically, one of the greatest college running backs of all time. Sure enough, he racked up some incredible stats playing for a Division III school with less than 2,000 students in rural Michigan. But he was no taller than 5'4'' and could not have weighed more than 120 lbs. I think I could've put him on the floor with a one-handed shove.

Would I ever pay money to see guys like him play in person or spend time watching their games on TV? No, and hell no.

While I don't like the new transfer rules, I believe that the astounding amount of money in Power 4 football now will enhance the talent level of those teams as a number of really good players will actually stick around in college and use up their eligibility before embarking (they hope) on an NFL career.

As for the non-Power 4 FBS schools? Sadly, I think they're in for a tough ride.

Thank God we got into the Big 12 when we did!

I think you'd be surprised what you'd be willing to watch if they were wearing TCU jerseys, playing in front of large crowds, and being shown on major TV networks.

A lot of people were watching TCU women's basketball this past year and getting all excited about that. How good do you think those players are, relative to some high school boys team you presumably have no interest in watching?

 

[Showtime Joe 2.0]

I think you'd be surprised what you'd be willing to watch if they were wearing TCU jerseys, playing in front of large crowds, and being shown on major TV networks.

So, why aren't they? I think that's kind of the point, isn't it?

 

[Wexahu]

So, why aren't they? I think that's kind of the point, isn't it?

Because they aren't good enough to play at TCU. Duh. But if all the P4 players decided they were going to boycott college football, the guys in G5 right now would take their place, and the show would go on, and people would still watch on TV and go to games.....because it's the same jersey. Maybe not in quite the same numbers, but it would still be a very thriving sport.

I can tell you the TV networks would MUCH rather televise Alabama vs Ohio State with G5/DII/DIII caliber players than a bunch of P4 caliber players playing in some semi-pro club league somewhere.