• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2020 Buckeyes Football

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
This all comes down to college administrators not wanting to tack on the price tag of testing protocols and safety measures.

They want their cash cow, they’ll just cut any corner they can to do it with as little responsibility to protect players as they can.

In for profit business, margin is key.
 
This all comes down to college administrators not wanting to tack on the price tag of testing protocols and safety measures.

They want their cash cow, they’ll just cut any corner they can to do it with as little responsibility to protect players as they can.

In for profit business, margin is key.
I think it is less about that, and the perception of doing it for the football team but not the entire school or other sports. I think what they need to try and do is see if they can get sponsorship to cover the cost. I am sure ESPN/FOX Sports would help, they have to want CFB to play to fill up time slots. It is not just the schools/players that are effected, but there is a large downstream effect to college football being canceled. I think like everything else in America, you need to let the players and coaches the option of playing and seeing they want to take the risk.
 
Over 30 college football players have already opted out of a fall season. If the season gets moved to the spring expect that number to go up dramatically. Anyone who believes that they’re going to get drafted won’t play, especially if the NFL timeline remains the same. Playing a spring NCAA season then going straight into the NFL draft, summer camp, and NFL fall season is a recipe for disaster. Fields “sitting out” of a spring season won’t be looked at poorly by NFL teams as it will be the norm for any top 150 prospect.

Yup. Any playing decision wrt COVID needs to prioritize health and safety, even if it means a season without many of the stars that might have defined it under normal circumstances. Just like players should prioritize their body and potential career over a school raking in millions off their work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LL3
And also why can’t they pivot. Maybe football does make sense but other fall sports should be pushed back to the Spring. Football to me is the one sport that is hard to have a Spring season followed up a Fall season right after. You either cancel the year and start back next Fall or try to play this year.

I will admit when I take my Bias away from being an OSU fan, I do tend to see why you dont play football because the cost would be way to high for any non top team.
 
Moving this in here where it belongs:

No -- I'm trying to have a discussion regarding a specific problem, and you are refusing to propose any specific solution because you don't want to defend the potential flaws in that solution. And my point about "nothing will change" is limited to expecting the NCAA to do what you want voluntarily. I'm saying that things can change, but you're going need specific legal mandates to make that happen. And you refuse to propose any.

No they don't.

Players, conferences, universities, coaches and administrators all have power.

Some of these groups banding together, as we're seeing now, puts pressure on the NCAA to change its model.

The court cases, which the NCAA has recently lost, puts pressure on the NCAA to change its model.

Political pressure, which the NCAA is receiving from the government who watched them lose in court, helps move the needle as well.


You're matter of factly stating that the NCAA is incapable of changing its model without more litigation, which just isn't necessarily true at all.
 
The Big 12 is already making overtures to the Ohio State's and Penn States of the world.

If you think these schools can't all up and leave the NCAA to develop a new model of collegiate athletics that includes compensation, you're fooling yourself.

But I guess if we don't have a point by point plan in place for predicting the exact specifics of this potential future model, we can't discuss it at all?

:chuckle:


Fuck the NCAA, man. The entrenched paternalism of outfits like this, and the sycophants who "listen to the players" right up until they say something they disagree with, don't deserve the greatness of collegiate athletics.

 
Answering in here:
@AZ_ I may have missed if you responded directly to this topic (this thread has a lot going on) so I apologize in advance if you've already answered. Would you propose that all universities across the board pay athletes, including the mid-majors, FCS, DII, etc? Or would you think this should be more of a P5 thing? Should each "level" of college football have different guidelines?

Quick high level opinion:
1. All colleges and universities should open up the NIL for their players. This allows them to profit from jersey/merch sales and the students as a representation of the universities, while the players themselves are able to financially benefit as well.

2. Anything resembling a "salary" or compensation aside from NIL is likely a P5 only model. My personal thoughts are that players are entitled to part of the revenue from the multi-billion dollar broadcast/streaming rights, playoff and bowl games, conference championships, etc.

One can reasonably assume that each level of the NCAA can and will have different guidelines, which they do now as well for the most part.

I've worked in four different mid-major athletic departments, in ticketing mostly, so I will admit I am not too high on the food chain to know what all revenues look like. But at two of the FCS locations I've been at football just simply does not bring much revenue in terms of ticketing. Dirt cheap tickets, small venue, normally filling a third of the stadium. I don't know what the TV contracts looked like, but if the best case is a stream on ESPN+ I can't imagine there is a ton of revenue there either. Then obviously much of the revenue that does come in will go towards Olympic sports.

Attendance is becoming a secondary revenue driver for much of the P5 world.

IMO, I think the in-person model for watching sports is fit for a revolution as well. Bars/gambling establishments in the stadium, bringing more tech to the in-game concessions experience, etc.

As someone who similarly worked in sports for nearly a decade, they're incredibly antiquated from a marketing standpoint. Didn't realize it as much when I was working in sports, myself. It took me transferring over into start up company culture and that of publicly traded, Fortune 500 companies to see just how antiqated these models are.

They've historically been so successful, there is no need for change. Now that they're soon to be unable to take advantage of the mostly free labor of athletes, I think you'll see that begin to change.

The reason I ask is because I agree the vast majority of P5 schools can afford to pay their student athletes, probably even most of the G5 schools can at least provide a stipend of some sort. However, I do think there is still a place for the scholarship/amateur student athlete. There are countless stories of kids coming from low-income families that normally wouldn't be able to afford college, but they get a scholarship to play football at a Kennesaw State or a Newberry College. This scholarship could be live-changing and allow them to get a degree, go on to begin a career with a good paying job, etc.

America's appetite for sports and football will still exist enough to allow for these smaller schools to continue playing with profits not being a part of the conversation.

Where I think the money should come from is through the enormous streams of revenue that purchase a huge stake in the game, which is through the P5 conferences as they're currently constructed.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on if you think there should be different guidelines for each level of college football. Is there room at any level for the scholarship/amateur student athlete? Thanks!

Definitely! Small school football will largely be unchanged, players are still going to compete for D1 offers the same way they always have, and I wouldn't be surprised if the training and competition for those spots translates down to the lower levels.

We're scouting athletes in grade school now, knowing that they could potentially have a chance to earn money while playing in college is only going to provide an incentive to work harder, be a part of a youth sports team and build their skills at a younger age.

All of that will benefit the talent at lower levels over time. All of that will create more job opportunities for trainers and coaches at the youth level to have a positive influence on kids lives.

Youth sports kicks ass with regards to childhood development and preparation for life. I'm all for providing a positive benefit that trickles down to all levels.
 
Answering in here:


Quick high level opinion:
1. All colleges and universities should open up the NIL for their players. This allows them to profit from jersey/merch sales and the students as a representation of the universities, while the players themselves are able to financially benefit as well.

2. Anything resembling a "salary" or compensation aside from NIL is likely a P5 only model. My personal thoughts are that players are entitled to part of the revenue from the multi-billion dollar broadcast/streaming rights, playoff and bowl games, conference championships, etc.

One can reasonably assume that each level of the NCAA can and will have different guidelines, which they do now as well for the most part.



Attendance is becoming a secondary revenue driver for much of the P5 world.

IMO, I think the in-person model for watching sports is fit for a revolution as well. Bars/gambling establishments in the stadium, bringing more tech to the in-game concessions experience, etc.

As someone who similarly worked in sports for nearly a decade, they're incredibly antiquated from a marketing standpoint. Didn't realize it as much when I was working in sports, myself. It took me transferring over into start up company culture and that of publicly traded, Fortune 500 companies to see just how antiqated these models are.

They've historically been so successful, there is no need for change. Now that they're soon to be unable to take advantage of the mostly free labor of athletes, I think you'll see that begin to change.



America's appetite for sports and football will still exist enough to allow for these smaller schools to continue playing with profits not being a part of the conversation.

Where I think the money should come from is through the enormous streams of revenue that purchase a huge stake in the game, which is through the P5 conferences as they're currently constructed.



Definitely! Small school football will largely be unchanged, players are still going to compete for D1 offers the same way they always have, and I wouldn't be surprised if the training and competition for those spots translates down to the lower levels.

We're scouting athletes in grade school now, knowing that they could potentially have a chance to earn money while playing in college is only going to provide an incentive to work harder, be a part of a youth sports team and build their skills at a younger age.

All of that will benefit the talent at lower levels over time. All of that will create more job opportunities for trainers and coaches at the youth level to have a positive influence on kids lives.

Youth sports kicks ass with regards to childhood development and preparation for life. I'm all for providing a positive benefit that trickles down to all levels.
Thanks for the response, some good insight in there. Much appreciated!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ_
Moving this in here where it belongs:



No they don't.

Players, conferences, universities, coaches and administrators all have power.

Some of these groups banding together, as we're seeing now, puts pressure on the NCAA to change its model.

The court cases, which the NCAA has recently lost, puts pressure on the NCAA to change its model.

Political pressure, which the NCAA is receiving from the government who watched them lose in court, helps move the needle as well.


You're matter of factly stating that the NCAA is incapable of changing its model without more litigation, which just isn't necessarily true at all.

Well, the NCAA is currently paying lawyers lots of money to fight cases in court. The only reasonable presumption is that is exactly what the member schools, as institutions, actually want.

But...I'll take this as you saying you're fine with no Congressional action, and are willing to let the process play out and see what the NCAA will agree to voluntarily.

As I said before, I suspect they'll give some ground on endorsements/likenesses, although I think there will be some schools very opposed to that because it essentially legalizes boosters funnelling money to players. Except instead of trying to do it under the table, they'll just do it openly via "endorsements." But it won't actually cost the schools any money or turn athletes into employees, so maybe they'll go that way. Though for the vast majority of players who aren't "name" enough to get endorsements, it won't put any more money in their pockets.
 
Well, the NCAA is currently paying lawyers lots of money to fight cases in court. The only reasonable presumption is that is exactly what the member schools, as institutions, actually want.

Not the only reasonable presumption...but...

Of course they want to keep the skim alive. Who is disputing this?

At some point, given their losses (in court, in the public eye), new pressure from student athletes speaking out, the pressure may force them to relent.

This isn't a remotely controversial take, they're under a ton of pressure to change or there are other avenues the schools, kids and conferences can take outside of the NCAA as their regulatory body.

But...I'll take this as you saying you're fine with no Congressional action, and are willing to let the process play out and see what the NCAA will agree to voluntarily.

Lol, cool. Won't be the first time you've created such a straw man, won't be the last.

As I said before, I suspect they'll give some ground on endorsements/likenesses, although I think there will be some schools very opposed to that because it essentially legalizes boosters funnelling money to players.

Questionable assumptions, here.

One could reasonably create and enforce regulations to the NIL to prevent boosters or university sponsors from doing this.

But...

Except instead of trying to do it under the table, they'll just do it openly via "endorsements." But it won't actually cost the schools any money or turn athletes into employees, so maybe they'll go that way. Though for the vast majority of players who aren't "name" enough to get endorsements, it won't put any more money in their pockets.

...as you said, they're already doing this under the table. So creating a paper trail and making it less corrupt is somehow being portrayed as a negative?

Finally, nobody is arguing that this will affect a majority of athletes, but I also think the opinion that few athletes will earn money off their NIL is presumptuous and unfounded.
 
So if Big Ten cancels, and other conferences don’t... does this fuck us in recruiting? Just curious if anyone has perspective on actual football implications because the politics and corona implications are being hashed to death.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top