|
Post by pix99 on Mar 7, 2024 12:45:33 GMT -6
Nick Saban said in a recent interview, “So I’m saying to myself, ‘Maybe this doesn’t work anymore, that the goals and aspirations are just different and that it’s all about how much money can I make as a college player?’ Now, I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that’s never been what we’re all about, and it’s not why we had success through the years.”
|
|
|
Post by redcocks on Mar 7, 2024 20:11:31 GMT -6
Nick Saban said in a recent interview, “So I’m saying to myself, ‘Maybe this doesn’t work anymore, that the goals and aspirations are just different and that it’s all about how much money can I make as a college player?’ Now, I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that’s never been what we’re all about, and it’s not why we had success through the years.” The truth is bama can no longer over signed and keep players from transferring to other schools. Remember use schools could do that .
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Mar 7, 2024 21:20:54 GMT -6
It's not about sour grapes. It's about college football is forever changing before our eyes rapidly. Now you may prefer it or bemoan it but I think we can all agree it will never be the same game we all loved.
|
|
|
Post by pix99 on Mar 7, 2024 21:47:11 GMT -6
It's not about sour grapes. It's about college football is forever changing before our eyes rapidly. Now you may prefer it or bemoan it but I think we can all agree it will never be the same game we all loved. Agreed. I'm already bemoaning.
|
|
|
Post by pubdaze on Mar 8, 2024 9:16:51 GMT -6
It's not about sour grapes. It's about college football is forever changing before our eyes rapidly. Now you may prefer it or bemoan it but I think we can all agree it will never be the same game we all loved. Agreed. I'm already bemoaning. And Saban was the first to bemoan it, he saw it coming. The toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no getting it back in there.
|
|
|
Post by redcocks on Mar 16, 2024 12:06:48 GMT -6
Jimbo had a lot to say about Saban recruiting philosophy. Some are mad because money is in plain view instead of under the table like Saban old days .
Now I do think there should be a cap on how much players get but no one capping how much I can earn . As someone posted the toothpaste tube
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Mar 16, 2024 13:43:57 GMT -6
Agreed. I'm already bemoaning. And Saban was the first to bemoan it, he saw it coming. The toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no getting it back in there. He wasn't the 1st. Some on here have been bemoaning it for nearly a decade. He helped create this monster he now worries may destroy the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by pix99 on Mar 16, 2024 16:04:13 GMT -6
And Saban was the first to bemoan it, he saw it coming. The toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no getting it back in there. He wasn't the 1st. Some on here have been bemoaning it for nearly a decade. He helped create this monster he now worries may destroy the whole thing. How much blame would you assign to the geniuses of the NCAA?
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Mar 16, 2024 18:40:02 GMT -6
He wasn't the 1st. Some on here have been bemoaning it for nearly a decade. He helped create this monster he now worries may destroy the whole thing. How much blame would you assign to the geniuses of the NCAA? Inept but at least there was some semblance of an effort to maintain amateurism. Meanwhile with the courts legislature the P5 putting unsurmountable presser to change. Let me ask you what we're these boobs to do to stop it?
|
|
|
Post by pix99 on Mar 16, 2024 21:58:02 GMT -6
How much blame would you assign to the geniuses of the NCAA? Inept but at least there was some semblance of an effort to maintain amateurism. Meanwhile with the courts legislature the P5 putting unsurmountable presser to change. Let me ask you what were these boobs to do to stop it? Not enough time or space for exhaustive list, but one biggie is their failure to recognize the importance of placing the athletes welfare ahead of the coaches, universities, and its own power. If they had, it may have prevented us getting to the point today where Congress is trying to do it for them. The NCAA's main client & concern wasn't "student athletes", it was the NCAA. The Atlantic published an in-depth article about it in 2011, and you can read it here: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/I will say that amateurism seems a myth, one that was promoted by the NCAA's first head honcho, Walter Byers, beginning in the 1950's. From the Atlantic report: ... much of the NCAA’s moral authority—indeed much of the justification for its existence—is vested in its claim to protect what it calls the “student-athlete.” The term is meant to conjure the nobility of amateurism, and the precedence of scholarship over athletic endeavor. But the origins of the “student-athlete” lie not in a disinterested ideal but in a sophistic formulation designed, as the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has written, to help the NCAA in its “fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.”
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Mar 17, 2024 17:14:24 GMT -6
Inept but at least there was some semblance of an effort to maintain amateurism. Meanwhile with the courts legislature the P5 putting unsurmountable presser to change. Let me ask you what were these boobs to do to stop it? Not enough time or space for exhaustive list, but one biggie is their failure to recognize the importance of placing the athletes welfare ahead of the coaches, universities, and its own power. If they had, it may have prevented us getting to the point today where Congress is trying to do it for them. The NCAA's main client & concern wasn't "student athletes", it was the NCAA. The Atlantic published an in-depth article about it in 2011, and you can read it here: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/I will say that amateurism seems a myth, one that was promoted by the NCAA's first head honcho, Walter Byers, beginning in the 1950's. From the Atlantic report: ... much of the NCAA’s moral authority—indeed much of the justification for its existence—is vested in its claim to protect what it calls the “student-athlete.” The term is meant to conjure the nobility of amateurism, and the precedence of scholarship over athletic endeavor. But the origins of the “student-athlete” lie not in a disinterested ideal but in a sophistic formulation designed, as the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has written, to help the NCAA in its “fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.” I agree with many of your sentiments and agree that the NCAA stinks. Money never puts the welfare of others ahead of itself. I think your a little naive if you believe in anyway what's happening now will put the welfare of athlete anywhere near the forefront. The P5 has pushed this farther in a few years than the NCAA could have done in 100 years. Athletes will soon be nothing more than equipment. If it works use it if it doesn't perform up to par junk it. The minority of athletes will succeed while the bottom 80% will pay the price. All that is happening is that the pursuit of money has asserted itself and everyone in its way will be useless. I'd wager if you looked into the legislative interference you'd find a little dirty cash. Who will really benefit? An ever decreasing number of elite schools and a very few athletes, if they are good enough and survive to make it to the pros. Most will not even acquire a diploma to fall back on. So most athletes will not be million dollar players and will complete their eligibility with no diploma and broke. Meanwhile these elite institutions will be ever richer at the expense of everyone else. Including their overpaid coaches.
|
|
|
Post by pix99 on Mar 18, 2024 10:35:28 GMT -6
Not enough time or space for exhaustive list, but one biggie is their failure to recognize the importance of placing the athletes welfare ahead of the coaches, universities, and its own power. If they had, it may have prevented us getting to the point today where Congress is trying to do it for them. The NCAA's main client & concern wasn't "student athletes", it was the NCAA. The Atlantic published an in-depth article about it in 2011, and you can read it here: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/I will say that amateurism seems a myth, one that was promoted by the NCAA's first head honcho, Walter Byers, beginning in the 1950's. From the Atlantic report: ... much of the NCAA’s moral authority—indeed much of the justification for its existence—is vested in its claim to protect what it calls the “student-athlete.” The term is meant to conjure the nobility of amateurism, and the precedence of scholarship over athletic endeavor. But the origins of the “student-athlete” lie not in a disinterested ideal but in a sophistic formulation designed, as the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has written, to help the NCAA in its “fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.” I agree with many of your sentiments and agree that the NCAA stinks. Money never puts the welfare of others ahead of itself. I think your a little naive if you believe in anyway what's happening now will put the welfare of athlete anywhere near the forefront. The P5 has pushed this farther in a few years than the NCAA could have done in 100 years. Athletes will soon be nothing more than equipment. If it works use it if it doesn't perform up to par junk it. The minority of athletes will succeed while the bottom 80% will pay the price. All that is happening is that the pursuit of money has asserted itself and everyone in its way will be useless. I'd wager if you looked into the legislative interference you'd find a little dirty cash. Who will really benefit? An ever decreasing number of elite schools and a very few athletes, if they are good enough and survive to make it to the pros. Most will not even acquire a diploma to fall back on. So most athletes will not be million dollar players and will complete their eligibility with no diploma and broke. Meanwhile these elite institutions will be ever richer at the expense of everyone else. Including their overpaid coaches. Oh, I absolutely don't believe what's happening now in the world of college athletics is for the real benefit of the players! I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything you said Slim. I was just pointing out that in the beginning, decades ago, the NCAA actually had an opportunity to shape the landscape of college athletics in a way to actually HELP & PROTECT the players, promote academics & real amateur athletes at the same time, but instead chose the route of pursuing power & money. That's a way over-simplified statement, but it's essentially true. The critters in Congress can grandstand till the cows come home, but they ain't actually helping. Everyone involved is just kicking the can down the road. Sankey & the others of his ilk aren't helping players either. Throwing tens of thousands or in some cases millions of dollars at an 18-19 year old kid is risking turning them into a type of Johnny Manziel.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Mar 18, 2024 12:02:14 GMT -6
The NCAA, at the very least, when they saw the writing on the wall, could have passed a rule stating that players would receive a base salary which was uniform across the entire division (or subdivision), giving them fair compensation for their time and physical (and yes, economic) sacrifices. The money to pay for this would've come from the NCAA itself. It would've, in essence, been a form of revenue sharing, independent of a player's individual school. So the base salary of a Crimson Tide QB would be exactly the same as that of a Jacksonville State punter.
Then, strict regulations and guidelines would've been put in place for NIL, basically allowing individual schools to give players a portion of merchandise sales, allow for (highly regulated) autograph signings, and even TV commercials featuring the players. There would be NO -- none, nada, zilch -- pay-for-play collectives allowed. If a booster club bought a car for a recruit, it would've still been a violation, whether it was a Lambo or a Yugo.
(Are any Yugos even still driving? I'd be impressed if they weren't all rust heaps by now.)
Instead, the NCAA let themselves be sued, then passed new rules without any real thought to regulation.
And here we are.
What a bunch of nimrods.
|
|
|
Post by pix99 on Mar 18, 2024 14:50:11 GMT -6
The NCAA, at the very least, when they saw the writing on the wall, could have passed a rule stating that players would receive a base salary which was uniform across the entire division (or subdivision), giving them fair compensation for their time and physical (and yes, economic) sacrifices. The money to pay for this would've come from the NCAA itself. It would've, in essence, been a form of revenue sharing, independent of a player's individual school. So the base salary of a Crimson Tide QB would be exactly the same as that of a Jacksonville State punter. Then, strict regulations and guidelines would've been put in place for NIL, basically allowing individual schools to give players a portion of merchandise sales, allow for (highly regulated) autograph signings, and even TV commercials featuring the players. There would be NO -- none, nada, zilch -- pay-for-play collectives allowed. If a booster club bought a car for a recruit, it would've still been a violation, whether it was a Lambo or a Yugo. (Are any Yugos even still driving? I'd be impressed if they weren't all rust heaps by now.) Instead, the NCAA let themselves be sued, then passed new rules without any real thought to regulation. And here we are. What a bunch of nimrods. Nail, meet hammer😁. 100% agreed.
|
|
|
Post by 315logan on Mar 18, 2024 21:26:48 GMT -6
The NCAA, at the very least, when they saw the writing on the wall, could have passed a rule stating that players would receive a base salary which was uniform across the entire division (or subdivision), giving them fair compensation for their time and physical (and yes, economic) sacrifices. The money to pay for this would've come from the NCAA itself. It would've, in essence, been a form of revenue sharing, independent of a player's individual school. So the base salary of a Crimson Tide QB would be exactly the same as that of a Jacksonville State punter. Then, strict regulations and guidelines would've been put in place for NIL, basically allowing individual schools to give players a portion of merchandise sales, allow for (highly regulated) autograph signings, and even TV commercials featuring the players. There would be NO -- none, nada, zilch -- pay-for-play collectives allowed. If a booster club bought a car for a recruit, it would've still been a violation, whether it was a Lambo or a Yugo. (Are any Yugos even still driving? I'd be impressed if they weren't all rust heaps by now.) Instead, the NCAA let themselves be sued, then passed new rules without any real thought to regulation. And here we are. What a bunch of nimrods. Extra points for using the word nimrods!
|
|