House settlement and recruiting ...

fordman84 · Jul 31, 2024

Peter Gozintite said:
Homes settling is a very common occurrence, particularly within the first year after construction

Deep Creek · Aug 1, 2024

Goldbug said:
You are evading the point I made. I agree the players should get some $$$. I made that point in the first sentence. How do you defend free agency when most players are now hired guns with zero allegiance to anything but their potential income when deciding to play at a particular school or remain there? How do you defend there being no guardrails regarding transfers? Where is the advantage to fostering a system where the players flat don't care about their "commitments"? The amount of money they are going to get pales in significance to the harm done when they can pull up stakes and move on a whim. They flat don't give a shit about the fans or the school. Those are irrelevant in the minds of the majority of players. A school with the resources of your and my favorite teams can afford anything they want. But who the hell wants to pay for that when the return is what? I'm not convinced the return is anything more than when George Steinbrenner was trying to buy World Series championships. (But the way, I did one deal with George and he was a good guy. We financed a shipping deal for him.) Mercenaries leave me cold. Especially when they won't stay bought and can move on down the road with no consequences.

I agree for the most part they don't give a shit about the fans or schools. Where I would argue is they do give a shit about the fans/schools is in regards to "showing them the money". They care about the bucks those two provide, not about them in any other way IMO.

I don't mind the players that are getting rewarded AFTER they've proven on the field of college football they are worth it. For the life of me I don't understand the sums they are paying guys BEFORE they've proven it at the college level. Give them something but jeez Louise, this is nuts to me. They've proven some things on the high school field, but we all know that isn't the same and varies greatly. Is this the CFB version of venture capital?

fordman84 · Aug 1, 2024

Deep Creek said:
I agree for the most part they don't give a shit about the fans or schools. Where I would argue is they do give a shit about the fans/schools is in regards to "showing them the money". They care about the bucks those two provide, not about them in any other way IMO.

I don't mind the players that are getting rewarded AFTER they've proven on the field of college football they are worth it. For the life of me I don't understand the sums they are paying guys BEFORE they've proven it at the college level. Give them something but jeez Louise, this is nuts to me. They've proven some things on the high school field, but we all know that isn't the same and varies greatly. Is this the CFB version of venture capital?

Most players on major league teams don't care about the town or the fans of their team either, it's just about the money. Kids are supposed to be "innocent" but college aged kids are all adults and its time we stopped treating them like they are playing youth sports.

I do agree that the sums of money to unproven talent is crazy, but that will even out over time. Right now we are still in the honeymoon period where teams like mine who have natty hungry fans with deep pockets are hopeful they can moneywhip a title.

Deep Creek · Aug 1, 2024

fordman84 said:
Most players on major league teams don't care about the town or the fans of their team either, it's just about the money. Kids are supposed to be "innocent" but college aged kids are all adults and its time we stopped treating them like they are playing youth sports.

I do agree that the sums of money to unproven talent is crazy, but that will even out over time. Right now we are still in the honeymoon period where teams like mine who have natty hungry fans with deep pockets are hopeful they can moneywhip a title.

I agree 100%. And most don't even care about their teammates if the money is greater somewhere else. I guess the rare exceptions are those QBs that are willing to restructure their contracts so it frees up money to keep/get better players around them. Some have done that in the past. Mahomes even alluded to it recently when told he is something like the 11th highest paid QB. But even those that did so probably isn't as noble as it seems. They've already got their sack full...if they haven't blown it on their bros, blow, entourages and hookers.

fordman84 · Aug 1, 2024

Deep Creek said:
I agree 100%. And most don't even care about their teammates if the money is greater somewhere else. I guess the rare exceptions are those QBs that are willing to restructure their contracts so it frees up money to keep/get better players around them. Some have done that in the past. Mahomes even alluded to it recently when told he is something like the 11th highest paid QB. But even those that did so probably isn't as noble as it seems. They've already got their sack full...if they haven't blown it on their bros, blow, entourages and hookers.

Every player should try to get the biggest bag of money they can on their second contract. After that, if they care about winning, the city, or their team they will take less than max cash to facilitate it. But that second contract is their first time to get true market value, so cash in.

Deep Creek · Aug 2, 2024

Good grief! :facepalm:

This is going to be a clusterfuck of the highest magnitude....at least until the dust settles....if ever. Sounds like college athletics version of a continuing soap opera. Going to be interesting to watch though.

Revenue Sharing with College Athletes

WhosYourDawggy · Aug 3, 2024

Deep Creek said:
Good grief! This is going to be a clusterfuck of the highest magnitude....at least until the dust settles....if ever. Sounds like college athletics version of a continuing soap opera. Going to be interesting to watch though.

Revenue Sharing with College Athletes

Did you think this was going to be easy?

It's a step forward. I've long advocated for a CBA ... it's really the only way to make sure that the players can't keep coming at you. The litigation is only just starting.

Deep Creek · Aug 3, 2024

WhosYourDawggy said:
Did you think this was going to be easy?

It's a step forward. I've long advocated for a CBA ... it's really the only way to make sure that the players can't keep coming at you. The litigation is only just starting.

I didn't know what to think. I don't think any of them did either. Sure sounds like even the attorneys that filed for the players didn't think it through completely.

This sounds like a good case of Ready, Fire, Aim to me.

fordman84 · Aug 29, 2024

Athlete group opposes NCAA's $2.8B settlement

A prominent advocacy group for college athletes opposes the $2.8 billion settlement agreement of antitrust litigation facing the NCAA and major college conferences.

www.espn.com

Another challenge to the settlement.

Deep Creek · Aug 29, 2024

fordman84 said:
Athlete group opposes NCAA's $2.8B settlement

A prominent advocacy group for college athletes opposes the $2.8 billion settlement agreement of antitrust litigation facing the NCAA and major college conferences.

www.espn.com

Another challenge to the settlement.

I won't live long enough for this issue to be settled.

ellupo · Aug 29, 2024

WhosYourDawggy said:
I am going to do a more detailed post in the future, but there is one thing about the house settlement that has already been supported by the NCAA and looks to go official ... teams will have 105 scholarships for football, and also a roster cap of 105.

Let's dig into that:

1. That sucks for teams like UGA that had rosters of about 130-135, including walkons. UGA has been known for having the most aggressive practices ... that is based on having a ton of walk-ons. They are gone, for the most part. So, don't like that.

2. This means that teams will have 20 more scholarships next year. Class of 2025. Right now most schools sign about 25-30. They will be able to go as high as 45-50 now, if they choose to do so. Maybe that's why UGA and TX just took some unrated project type DL. They aren't limited by scholarship count, that's for sure.

3. But, will teams actually put 105 on scholarship?
- If they do, they have to match that on the women's side.
- Can you really add that many more good players? At some point playing time comes into consideration.
- Some of the PWOs will take up those 20 extra spots and may not get full schollies, if any.

4. Transfer portal - for those that rely on it, can you really get 20 more out of the portal? For those that use it to supplement, I don't see a change. PT is still going to be the limiting factor.

5. This may help the G5 and lower schools like UF. Teams that took a lot of PWOs that would otherwise go play at UF might now go do that since they can get a scholarship now.

For all the positives, losing 20-30 WOs sucks for us.

What am I missing? What else is there on this?

I just want to say how much I enjoyed that little dig on the rival.