Author Topic: question about the future of football  (Read 1373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-1
question about the future of football
« on: December 11, 2019, 06:28:52 PM »
I've truly lost interest in big time college football. I just wonder what those of u that are much closer to the game think about the status of the game, and it's future. I watched the first quarter of a game recently. There were about 12 commercials and 2 plays run. If it wasn't a commercial it was a timeout or an "under review. I turned it off and went to bed. The players are going to be paid in the near future, and honestly why not? I'm a 77 year old guy and have lost most of my interest in "big time, big money" football. My guess is that the ultimate solution is going to be that schools license their brand to for profit organizations. There will be a facade of "student-athlete", but it will be diminished well below the current facade. Window dressing like cheerleaders, bands, etc will remain non-paid, student activities.

Perhaps my view is somewhat jaded by my advanced age, but I wonder what those of you who are close to the game think about what the future holds.

How will the game change in the next 10 years?
Will the pay to play ( more openly ) model enhance or destroy Div 1 football?
How much more of an increase in the ratio of commercials/playtime can big time TV college football tolerate before folks stop attending games or watching them on TV?



Offline Etref

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1865
  • FAN REACTION: +61/-22
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2019, 07:20:03 PM »
 :thumbup
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2019, 08:26:13 PM »
The “look at me”, “it’s all about me” culture is killing all sports.  I can even see it beginning to creep into the NHL, and that was about the last bastion of sportsmanship and true teamwork.
Instead of paying collegiate athletes MORE THAN THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING WITH THEIR SCHOLARSHIPS (‘scholarship’ - now there’s an oxymoron), there should be a federal law that prohibits a scholarship athlete from playing a sport professionally for five years after signing, or until he has his undergraduate degree.  This “one and done” thing - although not pervasive in football, yet - is ridiculous.  I would venture to guess that those guys learned nothing in their classes.  Zero.  They just used their college as a quick stepping stone.  Heck, just go on and go to the NFL, NBA, PGA, PBA - whatever.  But, accept a scholarship, and you are committing to that school for at least four years (earn a degree early, and you are free to move on).

Just one man’s opinion.

Robert

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • FAN REACTION: +85/-13
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2019, 07:59:32 AM »
But, accept a scholarship, and you are committing to that school for at least four years (earn a degree early, and you are free to move on).

I'd support that if you made scholarships binding on the schools for 4 years as well.  While most coaches and programs renew them automatically, scholarships are technically one year at a time.  Leave an out for poor grades or disruptive behavior, of course, but otherwise...

https://usatodayhss.com/2019/ncsa-are-athletic-scholarships-guaranteed-for-four-years

"That means if you sign an NLI and the coach who offered you the scholarships leaves the program — which can and does happen — your contract with the school remains. However, next year that same offer may not be on the table if there is a new coach and you were awarded a one-year scholarship. So, in the case of a coaching change, know that you may not get a scholarship in the second year." (Emphasis is mine)

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2019, 10:42:09 AM »
I'd support that if you made scholarships binding on the schools for 4 years as well.  While most coaches and programs renew them automatically, scholarships are technically one year at a time.  Leave an out for poor grades or disruptive behavior, of course, but otherwise...

https://usatodayhss.com/2019/ncsa-are-athletic-scholarships-guaranteed-for-four-years

"That means if you sign an NLI and the coach who offered you the scholarships leaves the program — which can and does happen — your contract with the school remains. However, next year that same offer may not be on the table if there is a new coach and you were awarded a one-year scholarship. So, in the case of a coaching change, know that you may not get a scholarship in the second year." (Emphasis is mine)

IMHO, a 'one-year deal' is part of the risk a student-athlete takes when he accepts his/her first scholarship, and should be weighed along with the 'anchor' element that I am suggesting.  By accepting a scholarship, a S/A is declaring that he/she is seeking an education in exchange for representing that institution (or subsequent institutions) with his/her athletic talents and skills.  Even at the most economical FBS institutions, in particular, that is an enormous value for the student-athlete (and his/her family, in most cases).   If they think they can do well in professional sports right out of high school, by all means - go pro.  But, don't deny another S/A the opportunity for a valuable scholarship for which they would be truly grateful.  So, if the scholarship is lost due to reasons within their control, like unacceptable academic performance, or for disciplinary reasons, they are still within their collegiate 'anchor' window, and would not be eligible for professional sports.

Yeah, there should be some 'escape' ability in the even the student-athlete loses his/her scholarship due to conditions outside of his/her control.  For example, a right-handed pitcher does everything he is asked, records an 8-12 record as a freshman, has a 3.5 GPA, with no disciplinary issues, but the new HC decides he needs that scholarship for another left-handed pitcher, and does not extend the right-hander's scholarship.  With proper documentation of the loss of the scholarship, this S/A should be allowed to move to any other institution, or attempt to play professionally.

A S/A injured while under scholarship - even outside of athletics, as long as it wasn't something stupid or illegal - should be provided complete medical care while under scholarship.  The institution does not have to extend the scholarship, but the S/A should be allowed to move to any other institution, or attempt to play professionally.

Jumping ship because the coach that recruited him/her departs would not be good cause, as long as that institution is willing to extend the scholarship.  Leave on your own, and you are still prohibited from playing professionally until your 'anchor' window closes.

The 'anchor' element for scholarship S/As that I am suggesting is more than just a commitment to a particular institution - it is a commitment by the S/A to securing higher education, in fair exchange for the athletic talents and skills of the S/A.  Once they commit to a collegiate scholarship, they can move around all they can (per NCAA rules), but they just shouldn't be allowed to treat participation in a collegiate sports program - under "scholarship" - as simply a "try out" or "minor league" for professional sports.  There are so, so many deserving young people out there that would make the most of the opportunity to play collegiate sports in exchange for getting a good education.

If collegiate student-athletes are allowed to get paid for their name and likeness, what is to stop high school student-athletes?  Where will it stop?

As conservative as I am, paying student-athletes at any level is just wrong.  Let them go pro at age 18, if they want, and get whatever somebody will pay them ($324m for 9 years!!!  That's more than $1m per appearance for Gerrit Cole).  That is true private enterprise, and, as foolish as some of those salaries may be, there should be no governmental intervention.

But collegiate student-athletes should remain 'amateur,' at least not anything more than the value of their scholarships.

The opinions expressed here are strictly those of a 66 year old conservative Texan (who wishes he was Hawaiian).  They do not necessarily represent the opinions of anybody else or any entity in the Universe.

Robert


Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • FAN REACTION: +85/-13
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2019, 02:42:43 PM »
Quote
IMHO, a 'one-year deal' is part of the risk a student-athlete takes when he accepts his/her first scholarship, and should be weighed along with the 'anchor' element that I am suggesting.  By accepting a scholarship, a S/A is declaring that he/she is seeking an education in exchange for representing that institution (or subsequent institutions) with his/her athletic talents and skills.  Even at the most economical FBS institutions, in particular, that is an enormous value for the student-athlete (and his/her family, in most cases).   If they think they can do well in professional sports right out of high school, by all means - go pro.  But, don't deny another S/A the opportunity for a valuable scholarship for which they would be truly grateful.  So, if the scholarship is lost due to reasons within their control, like unacceptable academic performance, or for disciplinary reasons, they are still within their collegiate 'anchor' window, and would not be eligible for professional sports.

I think we're on the same path her, Robert.  My point was that if you're going to make the commitment binding for four (or five) years on the student-athlete, then it is only fair to require it be binding on the institution as well.  If you require the student athlete to fulfill his four year commitment - which I'm of two minds about, but am willing to consider, if only for the sake of this discussion - but the school can decide on a year to year basis whether to renew or not, you're only giving the risk to the SA, when both sides should have equal requirements. 

I personally disagree with you about the option to change schools if the coach leaves, but then again, I'm also of the opinion that coaches should have to finish out their contracts before jumping to another school.  I hate that a coach can recruit a player into the "family" that a school provides, and then he leaves because another school wants him.  "Yeah, I know that I was talking about the North-Southeast Virginia State Technical and Mining family, but I can get a bigger paycheck as MidWest Colorado Tech, so I'm changing to a different family."  Many of these athletes commit because of an individual coach, and if another coach takes over that's completely different in approach, he's got no choice but to stick it out under someone he didn't commit to, or give up the sport he loves.

And I'm with you that if a S/A is injured under the watch of a college, he should definitely have all of his medical expenses covered, and his scholarship should be honored, even for a career ending injury.  Slappy Smith broke his neck playing for State Technical U?  The very LEAST they can do is let him have the rest of his 4 or 5 years to complete his schooling.

(And I'm not just saying this because I have a softball-playing daughter who has her heart set on playing in college, either.)

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2019, 03:15:11 PM »
And, while we're at it, let's get rules changes to make it an automatic UNS for players to signal first down, and for the 'wrist flip,' by players, or any team personnel,  simulating throwing of a flag (even if a flag has, in fact, been thrown).  And, finally, any TV "talent" that uses the expression "late flag" is automatically fired.

Yeah, I'm in a grouchy mood today.  But, nobody can tell the difference.  ;)

Offline carol1995

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 202
  • FAN REACTION: +34/-4
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2019, 04:12:14 PM »
And, while we're at it, let's get rules changes to make it an automatic UNS for players to signal first down, and for the 'wrist flip,' by players, or any team personnel,  simulating throwing of a flag (even if a flag has, in fact, been thrown).  And, finally, any TV "talent" that uses the expression "late flag" is automatically fired.

Yeah, I'm in a grouchy mood today.  But, nobody can tell the difference.  ;)

Did you apply to replace Rogers?  I'd vote for you on this post alone.   ^good

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • FAN REACTION: +85/-13
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2019, 07:55:11 AM »
And, while we're at it, let's get rules changes to make it an automatic UNS for players to signal first down, and for the 'wrist flip,' by players, or any team personnel,  simulating throwing of a flag (even if a flag has, in fact, been thrown).  And, finally, any TV "talent" that uses the expression "late flag" is automatically fired.

Yeah, I'm in a grouchy mood today.  But, nobody can tell the difference.  ;)

I'll pass on the first down signal, but good heavens, I wish we could ban the "throw the flag" gesture.  I especially love it when the wide receiver is the offender when there's PI contact, and he's the one giving the signal, only to find out that I DID already throw a flag, but he's not going to like the result...

Offline scrounge

  • *
  • Posts: 228
  • FAN REACTION: +35/-22
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2019, 03:08:38 PM »
Instead of paying collegiate athletes MORE THAN THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING WITH THEIR SCHOLARSHIPS (‘scholarship’ - now there’s an oxymoron), there should be a federal law that prohibits a scholarship athlete from playing a sport professionally for five years after signing, or until he has his undergraduate degree.  This “one and done” thing - although not pervasive in football, yet - is ridiculous.  I would venture to guess that those guys learned nothing in their classes.  Zero.  They just used their college as a quick stepping stone.  Heck, just go on and go to the NFL, NBA, PGA, PBA - whatever.  But, accept a scholarship, and you are committing to that school for at least four years (earn a degree early, and you are free to move on).

So it's not enough that only 99% of the power resides in this oligarchical institution, you want to make students even MORE indentured than they already are? Good lord....Let's face it, at the elite Power 5 level, this is professional sports for all but the participants - and really has been for decades now. And let's talk about that 'scholarship is enough' thing - WAY too often these athletes are steered into easy majors or outright fake classes (how you doin' UNC?). Want to take that class with a lab in the afternoon conflicting with practice? Yea, I don't think so. You'll put in your 40 hours of week or more or lose your spot. I've *personally* seen that myself, at some pretty good institutions. Do some SA's actually get an education? Of course, but let's not pretend that this is some unfettered education opportunity in exchange for a few hours of athletics a week.

Athletes are FINALLY getting a few crumbs of economic rights, but still woefully less than they should, and I support them 100% in getting at least 1 free transfer and name/image/likeness rights. I just don't have much patience with those with all the power and eating at a billions-dollar trough telling those actually putting their bodies on the line that they should take their 4 figure stipend and like it.


Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2019, 10:33:13 PM »
Please forgive my ignorance.  I was totally unaware that collegiate student-athletes are under indentured servitude.  That’s very different. Somehow, I thought S/As we’re attending their respective institutions completely voluntarily, and were free to leave, or at least give up their scholarships, at any time.  It never occurred to me that S/As were compelled to perform services, once they signed their scholarship agreement. Wow. I feel really silly, now.  Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
I’m flabbergasted.  How could I miss that?

Offline TampaSteve

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-13
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2019, 07:04:09 PM »
The “look at me”, “it’s all about me” culture is killing all sports.  I can even see it beginning to creep into the NHL, and that was about the last bastion of sportsmanship and true teamwork.
Instead of paying collegiate athletes MORE THAN THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING WITH THEIR SCHOLARSHIPS (‘scholarship’ - now there’s an oxymoron), there should be a federal law that prohibits a scholarship athlete from playing a sport professionally for five years after signing, or until he has his undergraduate degree.  This “one and done” thing - although not pervasive in football, yet - is ridiculous.  I would venture to guess that those guys learned nothing in their classes.  Zero.  They just used their college as a quick stepping stone.  Heck, just go on and go to the NFL, NBA, PGA, PBA - whatever.  But, accept a scholarship, and you are committing to that school for at least four years (earn a degree early, and you are free to move on).

Just one man’s opinion.

Robert
Fine points. It seems Every. Single. Play. Someone on A or B is gesturing in some way. - be it the INC signal, 1/10 signal, finger to mouth - shhhh.... I mean every play...sl classless - which is the norm.
I'm a FSU fan. Their DBs were terrible this yr, any inc pass 2-3 DBs would give the inc, yet when a WR somoked them for a 60yd score all they did was adjust one of about 15 wrist bands around their arms or legs. ...and this is true for virtually every team.

...plus games are 3.5hrs long.....yet soccer 2hr at most), for a basic league match draws a TV audience far in excess of any super bowl....games are wayyyyy too long.
And if you want to go to a game, you stand up the whole 3.5 hr. yeah, I paid $50 or so to stand for 3.5 hrs...now that's a fun time.

In as far as scholarships it seems the 'in' thing these days is for the big time player not to play the bowl---OK, because you have an athletic scholarship for this semester which just ended and you're not playing, you owe the university the scholarship $ for this past semester. Or the player who only plays 3 yrs. OK you signed for four yrs. if you decide to leave after 3, you owe the university for all 4 yrs.

I get it that another student who is, say, a musician can make tons of money; however, musicians doe not have a governing body or otherwise any rules whatsoever in their art for all college musicians. the comparison some make for ncaa athletes to other college kids making money is not equal. 

But for players making $, it seems it would mostly affect FB who has the biggest roster and biggest exposure. - but how many FB players would this apply to who would potentially cash in? 3? - and that's for maybe 5 schools (15 athletes total)
Oops, but if a FB player cashes in, that means the 3rd string female soccer striker probably wants to be paid too - equality and all.
In as far as FB players cashing in, it seems if their cash is in x% excess of the scholarship, then they're stripped of the scholarship and the school cant otherwise use that scholarship in question.

General thoughts, observations, whether folks agree or not...

Offline ejhorton75

  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2019, 08:50:29 AM »
I'm amazed that people are upset that everyone treats it as a business and then when the athletes decide to do the same thing they are the bad guys.  Sorry; they are more educated and more willing to look at it from their view than the naive or gullible generations of the past.

If a player has to sit out a year for leaving a school; then school should not be able to use that scholarship on another player.  See too many players that are back doored and school continues to make money and coaches continue to make money and player left out in the cold.  Either treat it like business for everyone and eliminate the tax free status of the teams or make it a true not-for profit and hold schools to the same standards as the weakest in the group.

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2287
  • FAN REACTION: +85/-33
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2019, 11:27:59 AM »
Will my kid be able to get paid to play high school sports? deadhorse:

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3295
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-110
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2019, 01:00:20 PM »
So with some 800 +/- NCAA member 4 year schools fielding teams, With Division I FCS and FBS, Division 2, and Division III how would you even begin to sort this out? 
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2536
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-13
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2019, 07:50:58 PM »
Quote
With Division I FCS and FBS, Division 2, and Division III how would you even begin to sort this out?
The Power 5 will either totally secede from the NCAA or come to some sort of independent working arrangement.   The other divisions won't matter much beyond maybe the local car dealer or grocery store chain might be able to pay a little bit.

Offline SPOTexas

  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2019, 09:24:09 AM »
The Power 5 will either totally secede from the NCAA or come to some sort of independent working arrangement.   The other divisions won't matter much beyond maybe the local car dealer or grocery store chain might be able to pay a little bit.

Why would they secede from something they already control? They'll just keep finding better ways to make money and force rule changes in their favor.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2536
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-13
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2019, 11:03:51 AM »
Why would they secede from something they already control?

They still fall under the NCAA rules regarding recruiting, for now.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3798
  • FAN REACTION: +288/-573
Re: question about the future of football
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2020, 02:18:53 PM »
Will my kid be able to get paid to play high school sports? deadhorse:

Not as silly a question as may have been intended. One answer, we too often forget to consider to silly questions, is simply "No".  Keeping payments, aside from scholarships, OUT of amateur sports, has proven to be a beneficial, practical & workable practice for generations.

The idea of Student Athlete payments is a progressive Pandora"s Box that ultimately will destroy, what has proven to be a "golden goose" for amateur sports, and if started at one level will ABSOLUTELY filter down to lower levels ruining opportunities for countless amateurs and their sports. 

If money is the ultimate objective, amateur athletes continue having the option of continuing their chosen pursuit, or getting a "real" job.  Making tough choices is a "life lesson" everyone has to contend with.  As long as student athletes have the choice, they have all the control they need.  Every "choice" carries both risk and potential reward.