|
Replies: 57
| visibility 7677
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
2
Oct 30, 2024, 7:07 PM
|
|
As much as Title IX is brought up as having something to do with the scholarhip limit( and it did ). To me the other big thing folks are missing; I have not at least seen much conversation about is:
"scholarship limits did not allow for schools to stockpile talent and keep the best players away from other schools"!
With the fact you can:
A. Openly pay player now!
B. Have 105 players on the roster all on scholarship or partial scholarship.
C. Tamper(not legally) with other schools players.
**What is to stop a school with basically unlimited resources from say: offering the ESPN 300(1- however many they need to replace from prior year) plus a huge sum of money to come to their program?
Not that they will ever play any of them so much(maybe the will/maybe they won't/remember the following year will come a fresh batch just as talented. But, the main thing will be that everybody else will get what's left. The roster limit sounds good until you realize that the whole roster now could be only 4 and 5-star players who are getting so much NIL money "they won't leave to go help another roster or themselves in the long run"!
Unintended consequences that a wealthy enough school with resources is sure to exploit. Isn't this what some say Bear Bryant did back in the day when the scholarship limit was as many as a school had to offer as long as the student was enrolled at the school. Enrolled - not sure they had to attend classes. The rumor was they had over 150 of the best players around many who were never going to see the field; but they would make good cannon fodder and make the starters better. And they would "not be playing for the competition"!
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Thoughts?
https://blog.sportsrecruits.com/2024/08/06/understanding-the-new-ncaa-scholarship-limits-what-it-means-for-your-recruiting-journey/
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Phenom [14573]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2001
|
Nothing. Nothing will stop them. It is the most ruleless, lawless of all the
2
Oct 30, 2024, 7:24 PM
|
|
professional sports that I can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
That's a Bizzarro World polar opposite from reality.
1
Oct 31, 2024, 1:19 PM
|
|
The old system was the lawless thing.
So says every lawsuit about either NIL or transfers . The NCAA has successfully defended zero of those cases.
The new system is clearly and objectively in the side of the law.
Facts trump emotions here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4755]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: That's a Bizzarro World polar opposite from reality.
Oct 31, 2024, 9:38 PM
|
|
Bluff,
Could you add something positive to the conversation ? Most of us recognize that the old NCAA model was unlawful and unfair to the athletes.
What I am asking you now is how can we move forward in this new reality so that we do not see a complete corruption of the relationship between athletes and the school. How do we find a way within the law that keeps this from becoming a wild west of money and malfeasance.
Please feel free to assume that college football gets some kind of anti-trust exemption. If we get that, how can we adequately reward the athletes without tearing college football completely asunder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22709]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13364
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
3
Oct 30, 2024, 7:28 PM
|
|
It is going to be like anything else in life, the more money you have the bigger house and better neighborhood you can live in. The SEC and B1G will live in the bigger and better neighborhoods and the smaller schools will be in the trailer parks, with everyone else in middle class America.
They call this progress...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
1
Oct 30, 2024, 7:58 PM
|
|
I read/heard somewhere where Dani said we are going to have to cut a bunch of guys.
I am guessing around 30ish, mostly all walkons that we aren’t all that familiar with. But it does suck for those kids
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [30455]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 23022
Joined: 2002
|
105 > 85 ... the Haves will stockpile talent ... don't kid yourselves.***
3
Oct 30, 2024, 8:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4755]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: 105 > 85 ... the Haves will stockpile talent ... don't kid yourselves.***
Oct 31, 2024, 9:40 PM
|
|
The scholarships were originally lowered to 85 to stop stockpiling.
With them going up to 105 - and with the ability to pay NIL in lieu of more scholarships, I don't see how stockpiling will be kept in check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2532]
TigerPulse: 87%
32
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
3
Oct 30, 2024, 8:25 PM
|
|
Won't matter...only 22 starting spots per team and guys want to play. The top Teams will always be Ohio State, Alabama, Texas (sometimes), UGA, etc. But there will be plenty of room for other schools to have great teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
2
Oct 30, 2024, 8:35 PM
|
|
Won't matter...only 22 starting spots per team and guys want to play. The top Teams will always be Ohio State, Alabama, Texas (sometimes), UGA, etc. But there will be plenty of room for other schools to have great teams.
I think in large part you are correct.
What I feel strongly is coming one day to so called "College Football" is a situation where a kid from a non-wealthy or non-middle class family who goes to school and is given "life changing money" to sit the bench! ***NoTE**: "it's not really life-changing, but if you have never had anything and your family is less fortunate let's say $750K might be enough to have you sit the bench for 4 years and be a practice dummy". They would have to get better just because they are around and might eventually; start. But, being content in other words might become a thing.
If that ever becomes a thing and going to a Big money school - even if they don't start is greater than starting at a non big money school: "I can see kids falling for the right now money"! Or rather their family who just want it.
The NFL at that point will have to step in and worry about who will fuel "their product" if NIL just grows and gets more lavish. What will be some of these kids incentive to practice and get better? Especially if they already got their money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2243]
TigerPulse: 81%
32
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
4
Oct 31, 2024, 8:33 AM
|
|
if you come from nothing, 750k is most definitely life changing money and it is ignorant to think otherwise.
If you make $15 an hour it would take you 23 years to make 750k.
An average financial advisor would set you up for financial security like that kid could never even fathom before having that money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
Oct 31, 2024, 11:52 AM
|
|
if you come from nothing, 750k is most definitely life changing money and it is ignorant to think otherwise.
If you make $15 an hour it would take you 23 years to make 750k.
An average financial advisor would set you up for financial security like that kid could never even fathom before having that money.
No doubt $750K is something(I could use that much myself right now).
You may not have explained it well enough and you missed the point: that being that years ago, there was so much more money to be made if you continue working and grinding to grow your game/skillset. By virtue of the fact, you could only get that by making it to the league; it kept a player hungry and working to get better for at least 3 years of college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2243]
TigerPulse: 81%
32
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
1
Nov 1, 2024, 9:39 AM
|
|
For most players, it won't matter how hard they grind. they ain't going to the league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
The NFL doesn't have anything to do with it.
Oct 31, 2024, 1:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson. ] |
|
College football has been the de facto NFL minor league for decades.
What happens in CFB re transfers and NIL doesn't hit the NFL's radar screen.
They're still going to draft the top 1% to 2% of guys every year, regardless of how much money the college guys have or don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7640]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
1
Oct 30, 2024, 9:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson. ] |
|
Guys want to play for sure but if a team can offer more cash to sit on the bench than others can to start they'll be enough people willing to take the cash to cause issues down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2180]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
3
Oct 30, 2024, 8:32 PM
|
|
Legitimate concerns however that top 10 to 20% of talent is going to want significant playing time because those guys feel they have a shot to make it to the NFL but they can’t make it if they don’t play and put up good tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
2
Oct 30, 2024, 8:40 PM
|
|
Legitimate concerns however that top 10 to 20% of talent is going to want significant playing time because those guys feel they have a shot to make it to the NFL but they can’t make it if they don’t play and put up good tape.
What if they are "satisfied" with the Big Money schools $1M NIL deal?
Legit question: "how many more athletes will have to get their money in pro sports or get drafted coming out of college: get the money and just fade as if they never played the sport a day in their life"? How many more boxer who have gotten used to sleeping on Silk sheets and have forgotten how to grind will it take to stay on top.
Unless you love the sport so much; you would play for free. Many of these kids, I can see just getting that initial "bag of money" and being satisfied/content.
It happens in music as well: "one hit wonders"! They get paid, they feel like: "i've made it" and they fade and the next person takes their spotlight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1086]
TigerPulse: 94%
25
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
2
Oct 30, 2024, 8:36 PM
|
|
There is a salary cap of roughly $21M per year
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3989]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Roster Limit: 105 for football. The Impact on Clemson.
2
Oct 30, 2024, 8:39 PM
|
|
Could it happen? Sure.
Will it? I doubt it. Too many competitive kids are not gonna wanna sit. A four star buried on the depth ain't gonna wanna sit around if they have NFL aspirations.
That said, I could totally see it happening on the other end of the equation with the transfer portal. Guys at the end of their careers accepting the NFL isn't likely going to be a route and hoping to cash out before they enter the 9-5 world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now.
1
1
Oct 30, 2024, 10:58 PM
|
|
The NCAA has a rule against it, but that rule violates federal laws and the judicial ruling in the federal Ohio vs NCAA case.
Legally, recruiting from another team's roster is no different that corporate headhunting.
The thing that may keep the schools with the richest NIL collectives from stockpiling elite players is playing time at a less well off program. (Think Bear Bryant st Alabama.)
There may be some balance, but the 105 scholly limit may create bigger changes than NIL and the portal put together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26229]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
Re: Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now.
2
Oct 31, 2024, 10:40 AM
|
|
Right on cue!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [101551]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 29890
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now.
1
Oct 31, 2024, 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
So you're saying that you're obsessed with me?
Oct 31, 2024, 10:58 AM
|
|
There seems to be a lot of that going around TNet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Echolalia. Right on cue for you.
Oct 31, 2024, 1:15 PM
[ in reply to Re: Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now. ] |
|
Tell everyone how you are obsessed with me and have nothing meaningful to contribute without using the words.
...oh, wait, that's what you chronically do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [101551]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 29890
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Apparently you don't understand the term "reply".
Oct 31, 2024, 1:21 PM
|
|
Duh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [101551]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 29890
Joined: 2005
|
One...two...three...
5
5
Oct 31, 2024, 4:17 PM
|
|
it's OK, internetting isn't everyone's cup of tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [152619]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 35635
Joined: 2010
|
Re: One...two...three...
2
Oct 31, 2024, 8:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [86015]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 17929
Joined: 2017
|
Look at bob,
3
Oct 31, 2024, 8:06 PM
[ in reply to One...two...three... ] |
|
finally showing some testticular fortitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [152619]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 35635
Joined: 2010
|
Pigs of bob's testticular
2
Nov 1, 2024, 8:34 AM
|
|
fortitude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now.
4
Oct 31, 2024, 12:16 PM
[ in reply to Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now. ] |
|
Except there is, tampering still exists.
Schools and coaches can still be held to and punished for breaking NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3 and 19.1.2.
If there wasnt tampering then Noah Fifita father wouldnt have had the need to publically dismiss any tampering claims with Bama
Just earlier this spring:
Southern Utah agreed that tampering violations occurred in the football program when football head coach DeLane Fitzgerald impermissibly contacted two student-athletes from other schools who were not entered into the NCAA Transfer Portal
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/5/29/media-center-tampering-violations-occurred-in-southern-utah-football-program.aspx
White papers on NCAA tampering, written by lawyers
https://www.troutman.com/a/web/XE4UdUrHi1uiVamPRy4K1/9etU4S/transcript_nil_examining_the_new_ncaa_transfer_rules_and_tampering.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4366040
University of Pittsburgh football athlete SirVocea Dennis, for example, disclosed that two other universities contacted him to express interest in his transfer during the 2022 season despite the fact that Dennis had not entered the transfer portal.
Boston College University football athlete Zay Flowers, who likewise had not entered the transfer portal, received two separate offers, each worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if he would transfer and play for other universities.
San Diego State University men’s basketball athlete Lamont Butler’s (who was not in the portal) family received over ten calls from other universities’ representatives offering lucrative NIL payments if Butler would transfer.The offers ranged from $175,000 to $1 million for Butler’s transfer.
If you are attempting to say that tampering doesn't exist for NIL collectives, then I would say you ought to be more specific with your statements. Because saying "there is no such thing as tampering now." is inaccurate and disingenuous. Furthermore, I would argue that because the NIL collectives cannot be punished for tampering does not mean tampering doesn't exist. Else we'd see them publically flaunt it.
TL;DR Tampering does exist. The NCAA member institutions and their employees can be punished for it. The NCAA cannot (yet because of a legal stay) enforce them on NIL collectives. In either scenario tampering does still exist
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Actually, there is such a thing as tampering now.
2
Oct 31, 2024, 12:22 PM
|
|
N0VATiger® Well said!
Thank you for that. Some people aren't worth the energy; especially when they seem to seek it so desperately at every post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: That rule us a federal law violation.
4
Oct 31, 2024, 1:20 PM
|
|
Saying that rule violates federal law doesnt make it more true, no matter how many times you repeat it. A judge placed a stay on the NCAA applying it to NIL collectives, he did not say it cannot be applied to NCAA members
NCAA member institutions absolutely, unequivocally have tampering rules to which they must abide. That alone invalidates your earlier statement. How can you punish a school <5mos ago if something doesn't exist?
The proof and examples are above. You can choose to continue to ignore facts if you wish, I certainly cannot stop you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Dude, that's totally bogus
Oct 31, 2024, 8:38 PM
|
|
The injunction in the Tennessee/Virginia case states:
1. Any NCAA and it's member institutions cannot interfere in private NIL is prohibited.
2. Those states are likely to win a permanent ban on any such interference based on the merits if the case.
3. The NCAA and it's members are enjoined from any interference in NIL until the case is decided.
You're acting like the NCAA is above the law. It absolutely is not.
"The NCAA is not a I've the law".
Supreme Court of Tre United States
Concurring opinion with the 9-0 majority
NCAA vs Alston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Dude, that's totally bogus
3
Oct 31, 2024, 8:56 PM
|
|
You’re actually agreeing with me here while also providing extraneous information that has nothing to do with whether there is such thing as tampering
I very clearly said federal stay prevents the NCAA from “punishing” NIL collectives, for now. It’s almost as if you don’t read before responding
The NCAA can and do police its own member institutions and their employees. In this context for tampering which again does exist
Remember you said there was no such thing as tampering. That statement has been shown with independent proof to be a falsehood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
It's not happening. Not a single current instance
Oct 31, 2024, 1:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: Actually, there is no such thing as tampering now. ] |
|
that I can find. Also again, the NCAA isn't even attempting to enforce that (bogus) rule because they're getting their azzes handed to them on every other anticompetitive chunk of their model.
Moreover, their rules are different for coaches and athletes. Coaches get recruited to other schools all the time.
There's a plethora of other Clenson coaches that went elsewhere.
Applying different transfer rules to athletes is another thing that gets the NCAA in a difficult to defend position in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: It's not happening. Not a single current instance
2
Oct 31, 2024, 1:46 PM
|
|
You didnt look hard enough. I actually provided you one, here it is again
Just earlier this spring 5 MONTHS AGO:
Southern Utah agreed that tampering violations occurred in the football program when football head coach DeLane Fitzgerald impermissibly contacted two student-athletes from other schools who were not entered into the NCAA Transfer Portal
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/5/29/media-center-tampering-violations-occurred-in-southern-utah-football-program.aspx
Your statement of "there is no such thing as tampering now" has been completely disproven at every turn and instance. The proof is right there for you to consume
The 2nd and 3rd sentences have nothing to do with the topic of whether there is such a thing as tampering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
I didn't remember that, and it's moot anyway
Oct 31, 2024, 4:40 PM
|
|
That rule is illegal under federal law.
Just like the ones against NIL.
Just like the ones against unlimited transfers without penalty.
The NCAA can't afford any more lawsuits about their anti competitive rules, and everyone that pushes back wins.
If the NCAA gets sued about it and loses another billion dollar settkement, the cost will hurt Clemson. Is that what you want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: I didn't remember that, and it's moot anyway
1
Oct 31, 2024, 4:58 PM
|
|
"That rule is illegal under federal law."
Again, except that its not. The judge who issued the stay against NIL being punished didn't say that.
You can continue to deny it but NCAA member institutions and their employee are held to that bylaw. Irrefutable proof above
Continuing to spread misinformation would seem intentionally ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [587]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: I didn't remember that, and it's moot anyway
2
Oct 31, 2024, 4:59 PM
[ in reply to I didn't remember that, and it's moot anyway ] |
|
He gave you the article. They were punished by the NCAA. So it definitely isn't a moot point. And I'm sure every instution does have lawyers. It may be oknin the future, but as it stands right now that kind of tampering is against the NCAA rules. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
The NCAA went after lie hanging fruit.
Oct 31, 2024, 8:43 PM
|
|
A smaller school that may have not thought they had deep enough pockets to fight it out in court.
Or they could have just decided that it wasn't worth it.
Either way, again, it was stupid for them to buckle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: The NCAA went after lie hanging fruit.
Oct 31, 2024, 8:59 PM
|
|
This has no bearing on whether tampering exists. None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
The NCAA definition has no bearing
Nov 1, 2024, 1:06 PM
|
|
On the fact that the NCAA rule against it violates federal law just like the ones about NIL and transfers that hit tossed by the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: The NCAA definition has no bearing
Nov 1, 2024, 2:10 PM
|
|
Now I think you are just purposefully being wrong.
The rule stands, its legal andit made it through a review in the courts by where they only limited the scope of the application (NIL collectives). If the entire rule violated federal law then why not strike down the rule while they had the chance? The answer is that it doesn't violate federal law.
You have provided no actual substantiation of your claim in the face of evidence to the contrary. None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Southern Utah was stupid to cave.
Oct 31, 2024, 4:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: It's not happening. Not a single current instance ] |
|
Just like Florida and FSU were a couple of years ago about "impermissable contact".
If the NCAA had a single scruple about fairness, no school would ever be able to get a coach from another school.
You know, like TAMU "tampered" with Elko?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20857]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2009
|
The NCAA does not have tampering rules among its member programs
2
Nov 1, 2024, 9:52 AM
|
|
for coaches. It only applies to the student athletes. It's a rule agreed to by its member institutions and is enforceable at a program level and among its professional staffers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6989]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Southern Utah was stupid to cave.
Nov 1, 2024, 2:12 PM
[ in reply to Southern Utah was stupid to cave. ] |
|
This is comical. If the tampering bylaws were illegal on a federal level, a law student could win that against the NCAA. They didn't, because the school knew they were wrong and violated a rule they agreed to.
Ergo they indirectly proved that tampering does still exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11460]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13921
Joined: 2021
|
Im curious about how the NFL is planning to adjust to the CFB changes
2
Oct 31, 2024, 6:55 AM
|
|
Especially if CFB also goes the route of Dabo’s preference and, in addition to the expanded roster (105 players on the payroll instead of 85) + the unlimited payroll, of every player being allowed a flat 5 year eligibility.
Heck, for that matter when will a player sue the NCAA, only this time to argue that ANY limit on years of athletic eligibility is unconstitutional as long as the student athlete remains a student in good standing with the college. Why can’t he continue to remain in college and, I don’t know, start on a new undergraduate degree starting year 6 and remain on scholarship, as long as the college in question allows graduated undergraduates to take additional classes even after he graduates? If the continuation of the undergraduate programs is not allowed by the school, then the kid would do what we see frequently at Clemson e.g., enrolling in a graduate program so as to remain a student in good standing. Even Master degree programs commonly have a five year window in which to complete a give. master’s degree.
I don’t see how the above would not be freely allowed under the Constitution.
Back to the NFL. How will they handle older players entering the league? Less time to build ‘star brand’ players. Potential negative impact on ratings.
What’s keeping the colleges from getting legal advice from the NFL so that both the colleges and NFL benefit from the CFB ‘plantation system’ that has benefitted both? After all, the NFL has found their own way to collude and not take college players with less than 3 years of college. NFL also has salary cap. As far as I can tell, no SCOTUS rulings against the NFL. Yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Maurice Clarett
2
Oct 31, 2024, 12:05 PM
|
|
RememberTheDanny Maurice Clarett was ahead of his time unfortunately for him.
You raise some great questions. I can see all of those things being challenged as well. And "falling by the wayside".
None of this is comfortable to talk about. I personally do not like the tampering part that is going on and the easy transfer rules. I think a player getting money for their NIL is fine - but as predicted you have "bad actors" coming in who stretch the spirit of the rule.
Some people have suggested some programs will shut down; which I do not see happening. Football at most schools helps to pay for the other non-revenue sports. Even if you aren't great; the gates at football games helps most schools. Getting some TV money even better.
The question about the NFL dealing with older players is a very real possibility for them. Especially if a kid is making good NIL money. Why take a chance on being on somebody's practice squad making less money than you would being a starter in college? Plus, the extra year gives you a chance to improve your skillset(if you want it and want to work for it that is).
I have no doubts those conversations and scenarios have been discussed at length already. Options have already been put out there to the powers that be who can make it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20883]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 15323
Joined: 2010
|
Many talented college players will soon earn more in college
2
Oct 31, 2024, 12:35 PM
|
|
than they will earn the rest of their lives. Agree with this proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11460]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13921
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Many talented college players will soon earn more in college
2
Oct 31, 2024, 9:56 PM
|
|
CFB is approaching a true Wild West football business that has few of the ‘business model guardrails’ of today’s NFL.
It will be fascinating if CFB rises to a high enough status as a challenger to NFL that the NFL starts playing games on Saturdays to take market share (I.e., viewers) from CFB, and vice versa.
The NFL model will completely change. With the ‘plantation model’ in which CFB identifies and develops talent that the NFL can put to immediate use, the NFL will selectively pursue HS players such as Travis Hunter and Ryan Williams, sign them to attractive contracts that will free the player up from college class work responsibilities.
On the other hand, NFL contracts are currently structured with voidable clauses, in which the player’s contract is voided if the team cuts the player. Doing contracts this way makes it feasible to pay players who had earned a fantastic contract to keep getting paid … as long as the team wants him … by saving money in other less-valuable players’s contracts by voiding those less-valuable players contracts.
In order to quasi compete, the most pro-like colleges will go to voidable NIL contracts, and will back off of any ‘honor’ to the player that had come to college but that didn’t pan out (like Travis Shaw at UNC).
I could go on and on and on, but won’t do so.
The entire world of CFB, I believe, is in a trajectory to change beyond what most of us previously thought we’d never live to see transpire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8071]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
CFB as competition to NFL is interesting take.
1
Nov 1, 2024, 1:50 PM
|
|
RememberTheDanny You will have those folks come on here and say: "never going to happen" with regards to CFB being a competitor of the NFL. However, who would have thought we would be where we are as I type this in regards to College free agency( Transfer Portal ).
I can envision exactly what you suggested manifesting itself in the NFL.
1. The NFL is looking at possibly getting rookies in at 24 and 25 years old now! NIL money as it stands today is guaranteed money. Once a player leaves for the NFL they have to earn a roster spot on the 53 or P.S. and it is not guaranteed. So, if a player is on the bubble, they likely will stay in college and work on their game. But, more importantly continue to bring in guaranteed money in the meantime.
2. When people are deciding where to spend their so called "disposable cash" and CFB is basically sucking up a large portion that would have otherwise gone to a pro team - "it makes those handful of college programs in their collective direct competition"! The difference between them and the XFL, UFL, USFL, Euro-league, etc. is these teams already have a following. The way many people seem to envision CFB moving forward is having maybe 10-15 teams vie for the championship yearly - "merely because they are the only ones who can afford to be in the club to compete for it"!
You bring up some interesting points in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 57
| visibility 7677
|
|
|
50
