Was Florida State Screwed by the Committee?

[nelsonmuntz]

“The bowls have been in decline for a decade.”

And yet the number of bowls is at/near an all time high. So I guess ESPN is showing money losing bowl games as a good deed of stimulating the economy?

Kirby Smart thinks the bowls have a problem, but apparently Vowelguy knows more about college football than Kirby Smart.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Collective bargaining with the players to include compensation, salary caps, trading deadlines, etc. Rules that are well defined and understood. I have to believe that will break off the 40-50 programs that can afford that structure (probably the SEC and BiG). The remaining programs will play college football in a more traditional way, although their best players will get siphoned off to the big boys.

Totally sucks, but I don't see how anything else really works.

If college football goes down the consolidation path, the size of its fanbase will drop off a cliff. Every other entertainment product is fragmenting rapidly, but college football people think this product will consolidate viewers? Right.

 

[RSTuthill]

I liked it better with no natty, and perhaps six major bowls on national broadcast TV on New Years day. Veg out in front of the screen w a two quart bottle of Fresca or something and two very large bags of chips. Not a single empty seat in any stadium. Starters on the field for the whole game. The PAC12 champion would always beat the B1G champion in the Rose Bowl. Yes, my children, it used to be like that, and those days will never return.

 

[HCCForever]

I liked it better with no natty, and perhaps six major bowls on national broadcast TV on New Years day. Veg out in front of the screen w a two quart bottle of Fresca or something and two very large bags of chips. Not a single empty seat in any stadium. Starters on the field for the whole game. The PAC12 champion would always beat the B1G champion in the Rose Bowl. Yes, my children, it used to be like that, and those days will never return.

Those were the days but they are gone forever. Big 8 champ always in the Orange bowl and SEC champ in Sugar Bowl and SWC in the Cotton Bowl. I remember the big controversy then was when UPI and AP polls declared different number ones.

 

[uconndogs]

If college football goes down the consolidation path, the size of its fanbase will drop off a cliff. Every other entertainment product is fragmenting rapidly, but college football people think this product will consolidate viewers? Right.

I think you're right. At the end of the day college football might wake up a realize they totally screwed themselves. Wouldn't be the first industry to shoot itself in the foot.

 

[Waquoit]

Players exploited for 50 years?
U serious?

Where did that line of thought come from?

The players generate all the money and get virtually none of it back. That's exploitation. I guess the line of thought is new in the CW but it's always been so.

 

[Vowelguy]

Kirby Smart thinks the bowls have a problem, but apparently Vowelguy knows more about college football than Kirby Smart.

Nelson twists someone's words to say something they didnt say. Shocking.


In other news, still confused about the 12-team playoff Nelson?

 

[freescooter]

If players were paid to play, you'd see a lot less opt outs, but there are still a lot of schools reluctant to let that happen.

This is the system that conferences and schools have created. You cant blame the players for taking advantage of it after they were exploited for 50 years plus

I liked it better with no natty, and perhaps six major bowls on national broadcast TV on New Years day. Veg out in front of the screen w a two quart bottle of Fresca or something and two very large bags of chips. Not a single empty seat in any stadium. Starters on the field for the whole game. The PAC12 champion would always beat the B1G champion in the Rose Bowl. Yes, my children, it used to be like that, and those days will never return.

I was thinking exactly that when my wife asked if I wanted to go to our local restaurant for a New Years Day dinner. Meant I missed the games but I really didn’t care. And I used to love the bowls. I never thought there “had to be a single champion.” In fact when there were multiple champs it was fun arguing about who would beat who. And it was the Rise Bowl not the Name Your Sponsor Rose Bowl!

 

[Vowelguy]

Kirby Smart thinks the bowls have a problem, but apparently Vowelguy knows more about college football than Kirby Smart.

Every thread with you becomes a food fight. I am not trying to get into a pissing match over this.
.

Gee I wonder why people react so negatively to your posts?
Where is that Angela Lansbury when we need her?

 

[AllHusky]

Those were the days but they are gone forever. Big 8 champ always in the Orange bowl and SEC champ in Sugar Bowl and SWC in the Cotton Bowl. I remember the big controversy then was when UPI and AP polls declared different number ones.

In some ways, things haven't changed all that much. Back in the good old days(I loved them too), the same conferences that got the plum bowl games, are the drivers of the P2(Premier League). Who got the slots in the Orange, Sugar and Cotton Bowls opposite the Big 8, SWC and SEC? Looked at the Cotton Bowl participants in the 70's, and without doing a deep dive, the usual suspects(P2'ers) played against the SWC champ.

I am a UConn fan, and an interested, not rabid FB fan. I would watch the matchups those 4 bowls produced any time. It is the volume of low interest matchups in low interest bowls that I think has hurt College Football. While hoops has an Everyman appeal, FB at the top level is only for the big($) boys. While everything is changing, nothing has changed.

 

[tzznandrew]

I liked it better with no natty, and perhaps six major bowls on national broadcast TV on New Years day. Veg out in front of the screen w a two quart bottle of Fresca or something and two very large bags of chips. Not a single empty seat in any stadium. Starters on the field for the whole game. The PAC12 champion would always beat the B1G champion in the Rose Bowl. Yes, my children, it used to be like that, and those days will never return.

Every other team sport in the world has and had championships decided on the field. Some don't have playoffs, but they have double round-robins. The best team wins it fair and square and everyone has a theoretical chance before the season started.

College football for years and years refused this because there was more money in bowls. They said it was about tradition, but it was always about money. It wasn't like there wasn't a champ, but just a beauty queen often selected by voters' imagined simulations rather than on the field.

And again, it wasn't because it wasn't possible to have a tournament. It was because it was worth more money to have a sport that essentially eliminated a bunch of teams before the season started. It's no surprise, then, that rather than keeping regional conferences that fans liked, the sport always most driven by money ripped it apart and only then came back to a tournament when it was just the next source of revenue to exploit.

Other than the odd team popping into FBS (UConn to BE), if you had the 12 team tournament in like 1992 before the dissolution of the SWC, they'd have made so much money and everyone would be happier. Pac-10, B1G, SEC, Big 8, Big East, ACC, SWC champs get 7 spots. at least one for whatever the equivalent of G5 was then. 4 wild cards. Would have been an absolute blast with a variety of different winners and some amazing upsets.

Oh well. What could have been...

 

[LIUCHusky]

The players generate all the money and get virtually none of it back. That's exploitation. I guess the line of thought is new in the CW but it's always been so.

What money? Most schools are losing money playing football.

 

[npignatjr]

The team that lost in overtime ?
That convincingly beat unanimous #1 Georgia?

This is the thread of epically bad takes.

Michigan special teams gave up 11 points
Georgia lost by 3 2 best receivers hurt

 

[npignatjr]

I liked it better with no natty, and perhaps six major bowls on national broadcast TV on New Years day. Veg out in front of the screen w a two quart bottle of Fresca or something and two very large bags of chips. Not a single empty seat in any stadium. Starters on the field for the whole game. The PAC12 champion would always beat the B1G champion in the Rose Bowl. Yes, my children, it used to be like that, and those days will never return.

It was a day our family would get together to watch the big bowl games, cook, eat, have a pool for each game. Miss those things. Now doesn't happen. Mostly because we are scattered up and down the east coast, but even if we still lived close with the current situation of college football it wouldn't be the same big day.

 

[Chin Diesel]

The players generate all the money and get virtually none of it back. That's exploitation. I guess the line of thought is new in the CW but it's always been so.

Ehh, for over 90% of the revenue producing sports and 100% of the non-revenue producing sports, the scholarship and education is worth way more than the athletes ever generated for the university.

There are very few athletes who generate enough interest to have "lost out" on their NIL over the years. And for many it was temporary as they made plenty of money by going pro.

 

[freescooter]

Ehh, for over 90% of the revenue producing sports and 100% of the non-revenue producing sports, the scholarship and education is worth way more than the athletes ever generated for the university.

There are very few athletes who generate enough interest to have "lost out" on their NIL over the years. And for many it was temporary as they made plenty of money by going pro.

You could say that about lots of industries, though. In the early part of your career you are under paid. Once you establish yourself in the industry, you earn more.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Man I wish I could have been exploited like that.

I don't know what to say. Exploited? Treated like kings for 4-5 years, free education, food, housing and state of the art training? Sure, they should get a piece of modern money, but the only ones that really made out in all this are the coaches.

AD departments have more revenue, but also more expenses. It's a wash. No one "gets the money" outside of those coaching staffs.

Secondly, this is voluntary. They could easily go to school and behave like the rest of us had to by applying, taking SATs, and having to go through the FAFSA, admissions, parent cost etc.

And we won't even mention that many recruited athletes get favorable admission treatment, from Tennis to Rowing to football, recruited athletes get into schools they otherwise wouldn't be in. That goes for all sports, not just football and hoops. Their athletic ability is their differentiator and unusual gift.


Edit: Exploited a tough word. The insinuation is that the student athlete is worse off than before. Is there any athlete at UConn that is worse off for having been an athlete at UConn than a non-athlete?

And as far as players generate revenue. They do, but the school brings a ton to the table.

You look at the G League. It is superior basketball to the NCAA at all levels. Players there, people would pay premium money to watch them play in college and when they are in G League, you can get into the building for $10.

 

[Chin Diesel]

The players generate all the money and get virtually none of it back. That's exploitation. I guess the line of thought is new in the CW but it's always been so.

Ehh, for over 90% of the revenue producing sports and 100% of the non-revenue producing sports, the scholarship and education is worth way more than the athletes ever generated for the university.

There are very few athletes who generate enough interest to have "lost out" on their NIL over the years. And for many it was temporary as they made plenty of money by going pro.

You could say that about lots of industries, though. In the early part of your career you are under paid. Once you establish yourself in the industry, you earn more.

I agree with you on that. For a majority of the players they weren't exploited. They gained more than they produced. Yes, the few whose name and ability were able to generate people in the seats or eyeballs on screens, they lost money.
I'd also suggest the players don't generate all the money. Coaches, once they are established draw eyeballs as well. Yes, they are compensated (and most quite nicely).
If you want to talk about how much revenue is generated by players, you should deduct the cost of their tuition and R&B and deduct revenue generated by non-players.

 

[ZooCougar]

The players generate all the money and get virtually none of it back. That's exploitation. I guess the line of thought is new in the CW but it's always been so.

Man I wish I could go to school for free and get a couple of degrees in 4 years. Sounds like a salt mine.

 

[ZooCougar]

I don't know what to say. Exploited? Treated like kings for 4-5 years, free education, food, housing and state of the art training? Sure, they should get a piece of modern money, but the only ones that really made out in all this are the coaches.

AD departments have more revenue, but also more expenses. It's a wash. No one "gets the money" outside of those coaching staffs.

Secondly, this is voluntary. They could easily go to school and behave like the rest of us had to by applying, taking SATs, and having to go through the FAFSA, admissions, parent cost etc.

And we won't even mention that many recruited athletes get favorable admission treatment, from Tennis to Rowing to football, recruited athletes get into schools they otherwise wouldn't be in. That goes for all sports, not just football and hoops. Their athletic ability is their differentiator and unusual gift.


Edit: Exploited a tough word. The insinuation is that the student athlete is worse off than before. Is there any athlete at UConn that is worse off for having been an athlete at UConn than a non-athlete?

And as far as players generate revenue. They do, but the school brings a ton to the table.

You look at the G League. It is superior basketball to the NCAA at all levels. Players there, people would pay premium money to watch them play in college and when they are in G League, you can get into the building for $10.

Hard to call it exploitation when they are getting a free education, benefits and many other intangible opportunities and they willingly sign up for it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid but to paint it like these are mistreated factory workers is utterly ridiculous.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

I don't know what to say. Exploited? Treated like kings for 4-5 years, free education, food, housing and state of the art training? Sure, they should get a piece of modern money, but the only ones that really made out in all this are the coaches.

And if you happen to suffer a horrific injury your senior year, thanks for playing, you get nothing but a worthless college degree you probably learned nothing from, but at least ESPN got paid.

Exploitation isn't about how well you're treated. It's about having your labor used to make the rich richer while you are supposed to be happy with a dorm room and a massage chair and a Communications degree from the University of Alabama.

 

[CL82]

And yet they aren't. Do I have to use stick figures and crayons to establish to the boneyard how this all works?

Yes please!

 

[How Sway?!]

Hard to call it exploitation when they are getting a free education, benefits and many other intangible opportunities and they willingly sign up for it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid but to paint it like these are mistreated factory workers is utterly ridiculous.

If you use someone's talent to your benefit without proper compensation, that's the definition of exploitation. Are there levels to exploitation? Yes, but you can't ignore the fact that cfb and cbb are multi billion dollar industries built of the talent of players who until recently could not even use their image or likeness to make some money on the side.

Yes, there were/are quite a few who did very well for themselves via the system but there are thousands more who were deprived of at least 6 figures during their playing days.

 

[Bongo Fury]

I enjoyed attending college

 

[JohnFSilver]

And if you happen to suffer a horrific injury your senior year, thanks for playing, you get nothing but a worthless college degree you probably learned nothing from, but at least ESPN got paid.

Exploitation isn't about how well you're treated. It's about having your labor used to make the rich richer while you are supposed to be happy with a dorm room and a massage chair and a Communications degree from the University of Alabama.

What is the ROI of a bachelors degree over the high school diploma? Career earnings of a BA, BS is like $1.2 million.

Here is an analysis of median lifetime earnings between BA and BS:

Get your degree. Outcomes are better.

After controlling for key socio-demographic variables that influence earnings and the probability of college completion, the differences in lifetime earnings by educational attainment are reduced, but still substantial

Regression estimates show that men with bachelor's degrees would earn $655,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with a bachelor's degrees would earn $450,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates.